Daily Papers

Existing benchmarks for tool-using LLM agents primarily report single-run success rates and miss reliability properties required in production. We introduce ReliabilityBench, a benchmark for evaluating agent reliability across three dimensions: (i) consistency under repeated execution using pass^k, (ii) robustness to semantically equivalent task perturbations at intensity ε, and (iii) fault tolerance under controlled tool/API failures at intensity λ. ReliabilityBench contributes a unified reliability surface R(k,ε,λ), action metamorphic relations that define correctness via end-state equivalence rather than text similarity, and a chaos-engineering-style fault injection framework (timeouts, rate limits, partial responses, schema drift). We evaluate two models (Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4o) and two agent architectures (ReAct, Reflexion) across four domains (scheduling, travel, customer support, e-commerce) over 1,280 episodes. Perturbations alone reduce success from 96.9% at ε=0 to 88.1% at ε=0.2. Rate limiting is the most damaging fault in ablations. ReAct is more robust than Reflexion under combined stress, and Gemini 2.0 Flash achieves comparable reliability to GPT-4o at much lower cost. ReliabilityBench provides a systematic framework for assessing production readiness of LLM agents.

Recent research in language-guided visual navigation has demonstrated a significant demand for the diversity of traversable environments and the quantity of supervision for training generalizable agents. To tackle the common data scarcity issue in existing vision-and-language navigation datasets, we propose an effective paradigm for generating large-scale data for learning, which applies 1200+ photo-realistic environments from HM3D and Gibson datasets and synthesizes 4.9 million instruction trajectory pairs using fully-accessible resources on the web. Importantly, we investigate the influence of each component in this paradigm on the agent's performance and study how to adequately apply the augmented data to pre-train and fine-tune an agent. Thanks to our large-scale dataset, the performance of an existing agent can be pushed up (+11% absolute with regard to previous SoTA) to a significantly new best of 80% single-run success rate on the R2R test split by simple imitation learning. The long-lasting generalization gap between navigating in seen and unseen environments is also reduced to less than 1% (versus 8% in the previous best method). Moreover, our paradigm also facilitates different models to achieve new state-of-the-art navigation results on CVDN, REVERIE, and R2R in continuous environments.

We introduce Tempest, a multi-turn adversarial framework that models the gradual erosion of Large Language Model (LLM) safety through a tree search perspective. Unlike single-turn jailbreaks that rely on one meticulously engineered prompt, Tempest expands the conversation at each turn in a breadth-first fashion, branching out multiple adversarial prompts that exploit partial compliance from previous responses. By tracking these incremental policy leaks and re-injecting them into subsequent queries, Tempest reveals how minor concessions can accumulate into fully disallowed outputs. Evaluations on the JailbreakBench dataset show that Tempest achieves a 100% success rate on GPT-3.5-turbo and 97% on GPT-4 in a single multi-turn run, using fewer queries than baselines such as Crescendo or GOAT. This tree search methodology offers an in-depth view of how model safeguards degrade over successive dialogue turns, underscoring the urgency of robust multi-turn testing procedures for language models.

Recent machine learning papers often report 1-2 percentage point improvements from a single run on a benchmark. These gains are highly sensitive to random seeds, data ordering, and implementation details, yet are rarely accompanied by uncertainty estimates or significance tests. It is therefore unclear when a reported +1-2% reflects a real algorithmic advance versus noise. We revisit this problem under realistic compute budgets, where only a few runs are affordable. We propose a simple, PC-friendly evaluation protocol based on paired multi-seed runs, bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap confidence intervals, and a sign-flip permutation test on per-seed deltas. The protocol is intentionally conservative and is meant as a guardrail against over-claiming. We instantiate it on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-10N, and AG News using synthetic no-improvement, small-gain, and medium-gain scenarios. Single runs and unpaired t-tests often suggest significant gains for 0.6-2.0 point improvements, especially on text. With only three seeds, our paired protocol never declares significance in these settings. We argue that such conservative evaluation is a safer default for small gains under tight budgets.

Agentic systems are evaluated on benchmarks where agents interact with environments to solve tasks. Most papers report a pass@1 score computed from a single run per task, assuming this gives a reliable performance estimate. We test this assumption by collecting 60,000 agentic trajectories on SWE-Bench-Verified, spanning three models and two scaffolds. We find substantial variance: single-run pass@1 estimates vary by 2.2 to 6.0 percentage points depending on which run is selected, with standard deviations exceeding 1.5 percentage points even at temperature 0. This variance has critical implications: reported improvements of 2--3 percentage points may reflect evaluation noise rather than genuine algorithmic progress. Through token-level analysis, we show that trajectories diverge early, often within the first few percent of tokens, and that these small differences cascade into different solution strategies. To enable reliable evaluation of agentic systems, we recommend three concrete practices: (1) estimate pass@1 from multiple independent runs per task, especially when measuring small improvements, (2) use statistical power analysis to determine the number of runs needed to detect expected effect sizes, and (3) consider metrics like pass@k (optimistic bound) and pass^k (pessimistic bound) with k>1 to better characterize the full performance envelope. While these practices increase evaluation cost, they are essential for distinguishing genuine scientific progress from statistical noise.

The robot learning community has made great strides in recent years, proposing new architectures and showcasing impressive new capabilities; however, the dominant metric used in the literature, especially for physical experiments, is "success rate", i.e. the percentage of runs that were successful. Furthermore, it is common for papers to report this number with little to no information regarding the number of runs, the initial conditions, and the success criteria, little to no narrative description of the behaviors and failures observed, and little to no statistical analysis of the findings. In this paper we argue that to move the field forward, researchers should provide a nuanced evaluation of their methods, especially when evaluating and comparing learned policies on physical robots. To do so, we propose best practices for future evaluations: explicitly reporting the experimental conditions, evaluating several metrics designed to complement success rate, conducting statistical analysis, and adding a qualitative description of failures modes. We illustrate these through an evaluation on physical robots of several learned policies for manipulation tasks.

Point-adjustment (PA), for years the default scoring protocol in time-series anomaly detection (TSAD), was shown by Kim et al. (2022) to award near-perfect F1 to random anomaly scores. The field adopted a suite of replacement metrics (PA%K, range-based precision/recall, affiliation precision/recall, and Volume-Under-the-Surface, VUS, ROC/PR). We ask, independently and adversarially, whether these resist no-skill detectors on real benchmarks, and find the answer turns entirely on one overlooked variable: N, the number of random attempts an adversary reports the best of. Under a single honest run (N=1), not one replacement metric is gameable on any of six benchmarks (UCR, SMD, SMAP, MSL, NAB, PSM): a random detector reaches 90% of the best real detector's score on at most 11% of series for affiliation-F1, 5% for the ROC family, and 2% for the PR-based metrics and PA%K. But under best-of-N reporting, the seed-shopping endemic to ML, the metrics split sharply. affiliation-F1 and every ROC-based metric inflate steeply, affiliation crossing gameable (25% of series) by N=3 and reaching 0.98 at the full pool (N=41), the ROC family crossing by N=9-11; the PR-based metrics and PA%K stay near-flat at every N, floored near the anomaly prevalence (the lone exception is NAB at large N). A paired test finds VUS-ROC inflated on 131 series where its sibling VUS-PR is not, and never the reverse. The ROC-vs-PR split follows from the order-statistic behaviour of AUC under extreme class imbalance (a random PR-AUC is floored at prevalence); affiliation inflates by a second route, its extreme single-run leniency (already fragile at N=1). We release a pip-installable stress-test harness, and recommend reporting single-run scores or disclosing N and preferring PR-based metrics, which resist best-of-N inflation on nearly every benchmark.

In this paper we show that reporting a single performance score is insufficient to compare non-deterministic approaches. We demonstrate for common sequence tagging tasks that the seed value for the random number generator can result in statistically significant (p < 10^-4) differences for state-of-the-art systems. For two recent systems for NER, we observe an absolute difference of one percentage point F1-score depending on the selected seed value, making these systems perceived either as state-of-the-art or mediocre. Instead of publishing and reporting single performance scores, we propose to compare score distributions based on multiple executions. Based on the evaluation of 50.000 LSTM-networks for five sequence tagging tasks, we present network architectures that produce both superior performance as well as are more stable with respect to the remaining hyperparameters.

Agentic coding assistants are increasingly given extra capabilities, such as browser based testing tools and design oriented system prompts, on the assumption that more capability yields better software. This study tested that assumption directly. Ninety independent agent runs built the same application, a real time retrospective board, from one detailed specification, each scored on a fixed 14 criterion functional rubric (42 point maximum) and a visual quality review. The runs spanned several model generations, two agent harnesses, two reasoning effort levels, a testing tool, and two design oriented prompts. Capability tier dominated: frontier models clustered near the ceiling while a low cost local model fell to 24 to 37 points. A criterion level analysis revealed what run totals conceal. Container deployment was the dominant defect, failing first try in 44 percent of runs, with its failure rate shifting sharply across model generations while mean totals moved less than a point. The testing tool raised cost by 42 to 68 percent without improving functional score or reliability, even on interface visible criteria. Raising reasoning effort from High to xHigh lifted first try perfect runs from 28 percent to 89 percent and cut corrective prompts about five fold, for 9 to 29 percent more cost. A design oriented prompt raised visual quality, 4.5 versus 3.0 on a 5 point scale, without lifting function, and a one paragraph paraphrase of its directive reproduced the entire lift. The practical lesson is to match the fix to the failure: most first run failures came from weak reasoning, which a stronger model or more effort prevents, not from visible flaws a checking tool would catch.

Large-scale AI training is now fundamentally a distributed systems problem, and hardware failures have become routine operating conditions rather than rare exceptions. Public operational evidence from production training clusters, however, remains scarce. This technical report presents an empirical analysis of a 63-node NVIDIA B200 production cluster (504 GPUs), using 55 days of Prometheus time-series data and 73 days of operational logs covering 224 multi-node training sessions. The cluster operates within a cross-organizational environment in which five parties (SKT, Upstage, Lablup, NVIDIA Korea, and VAST Data) share a unified monitoring pipeline. This arrangement enabled joint diagnosis of a 60-node-scale storage I/O bottleneck that did not appear at 2-4-node scale, a production-scale phenomenon no single team could isolate alone. Drawing on a months-long pre-training campaign, we perform three quantitative analyses yielding four findings. First, statistical analysis over 751 Prometheus metrics and 10 XID-identified GPU failures achieves a 10/10 detection rate (2/10 pre-XID) at ~0.84 false positives per day. No single metric is consistently dominant across failure types, motivating a multi-signal detection strategy. Second, profiling 523 checkpoint events along the GPU VRAM to NFS path attributes the "bandwidth paradox" (1.4-10.4% utilization of 200 Gbps RoCE) to saturation of the 128-slot NFS RPC layer. Third, multi-node failure response shows concentrated exclusions (top 3 of 63 nodes account for >50% of all exclusions) and an auto-retry chain success rate of 33.3% over 12 chains (73 attempts), 2.7x the 12.5% manual recovery rate; the median retry interval is 11 min (IQR 10-11). All analyses are grounded in production infrastructure providing session-level workload management, GPU-centric scheduling, and unified observability.