Skip to main content
Search

# Benchmark reliability

2 related articles

Subscribe to updates
  1. A general coding agent finished all 244 bioinformatics tasks and scored 0.869, beating specialist agents at 0.758

    On the 244 free-form tasks of PromptBio-Bench, Claude Opus 5.5 running in Claude Code completed every task and reached 0.869 accuracy under the original evaluation framework, against 0.758 for Biomni and ToolsGenie and 0.717 for STELLA. With 667 bioinformatics Agent Skills installed, the agent never invoked a skill in 444 subagent sessions; after evaluator defects were fixed, the skills configuration reached 0.918 under a GPT judge and 0.926 under a Claude judge, while the no-skills configuration reached 0.873 and 0.902. Of the 18 remaining failures, 7 trace to defective references and 4 to settings the tasks never state.

  2. arXiv

    A keyword harness passed a 1B model that never calls tools: a strict diagnostic ladder found the missing prior and repaired it in 3.3 GPU-hours

    Working on a matched-architecture pair of Spanish security small models (VectraYX-600M at 661.6M parameters and VectraYX-1B at 1,109M, sharing decoder, tokenizer and special-token layout), the work documents a keyword-harness false positive: the two score almost identically on the lenient B4 tool-use metric (0.660 vs. 0.650), yet a verbatim-reproduction check shows the 600M emits valid tool calls with generalized arguments on 6/6 training examples while the 1B does so on 0/4–6 at every pre-remediation checkpoint; a first-token probe localizes the failure to a missing prior of roughly 10^-4–10^-5 on <|tool_call|>, and a targeted SFT recipe (diverse corpus, 5x learning rate, 2,202 steps, about 3.3 GPU-hours) raises the 1B's valid emission from 0.100 to 0.959 and passes 0.

You’re all caught up