Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Cozmin Ududec

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

2 papers
1 author row

Possible papers

2

NeurIPS Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Establishing Best Practices in Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks

  • Yuxuan Zhu
  • Tengjun Jin
  • Yada Pruksachatkun
  • Andy Zhang
  • Shu Liu
  • Sasha Cui
  • Sayash Kapoor
  • Shayne Longpre

Benchmarks are essential for quantitatively tracking progress in AI. As AI agents become increasingly capable, researchers and practitioners have introduced agentic benchmarks to evaluate agents on complex, real-world tasks. These benchmarks typically measure agent capabilities by evaluating task outcomes via specific reward designs. However, we show that many agentic benchmarks have issues in task setup or reward design. For example, SWE-bench-Verified uses insufficient test cases, while $\tau$-bench counts empty responses as successes. Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation of agents’ performance by up to 100% in relative terms. To make agentic evaluation rigorous, we introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience, a survey of best practices, and previously reported issues. When applied to CVE-Bench, a benchmark with a particularly complex evaluation design, ABC reduces performance overestimation by 33%.

NeurIPS Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Measuring what Matters: Construct Validity in Large Language Model Benchmarks

  • Andrew M. Bean
  • Ryan Othniel Kearns
  • Angelika Romanou
  • Franziska Sofia Hafner
  • Harry Mayne
  • Jan Batzner
  • Negar Foroutan Eghlidi
  • Chris Schmitz

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is crucial for both assessing their capabilities and identifying safety or robustness issues prior to deployment. Reliably measuring abstract and complex phenomena such as safety' and robustness' requires strong construct validity, that is, having measures that represent what matters to the phenomenon. With a team of 29 expert reviewers, we conduct a systematic review of 445 LLM benchmarks from leading conferences in natural language processing and machine learning. Across the reviewed articles, we find patterns related to the measured phenomena, tasks, and scoring metrics which undermine the validity of the resulting claims. To address these shortcomings, we provide eight key recommendations and detailed actionable guidance to researchers and practitioners in developing LLM benchmarks.

v2026.09.13