Roshnee Sharma

Tara Bogavelli, Oluwanifemi Bamgbose, Gabrielle Gauthier Melançon et al.

Enterprise LLM applications require consistently high quality and reliable performance across diverse scenarios, demanding robustness to minor variations. Existing research shows that even small prompt changes can lead to substantial differences in output, but has mainly focused on a narrow set of perturbations with small academic datasets, limiting their relevance to real-world applications. To address this, we present a comprehensive benchmark suite that evaluates robustness across multiple perturbation types, including general text edits (e.g., punctuation, whitespace), formatting changes (e.g., JSON, YAML), multilingual and cross-lingual inputs, and positional variations in instructions. Evaluating 11 models ranging from 4B to 120B+ parameters, we find that minor perturbations reduce performance by up to 40 percentage points on key enterprise metrics. Critically, we demonstrate that the relationship between model size and robustness is more nuanced than conventional assumptions suggest: an 8B parameter model (Ministral 3 8B) outperforms most larger models, while another 8B model (Llama 3.1 8B) performs worst overall.

Bryan Etzine, Masoud Hashemi, Nishanth Madhusudhan et al.

Existing benchmarks are becoming saturated and struggle to separate model performances due to factors like data contamination and advancing LLM capabilities. This paper introduces EMDM (Enhanced Model Differentiation Metric), a novel weighted metric that revitalizes benchmarks by enhancing model separation. EMDM integrates final answer and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning correctness, assigning weights based on the complexity and reasoning depth required to solve a given sample in the evaluation data. Using a baseline LLM in two setups-Unguided, where the model has no prior exposure to test samples, and Guided, where the model has prior knowledge of the desired answer-EMDM distinguishes instances of varying difficulty. The CoT and answer correctness from these setups inform an optimization objective for weight assignment, resulting in a more nuanced evaluation of model performance. Compared to the exact match (EM) metric, which achieves 17% separation on ARC-Challenge, EMDM achieves 46%, demonstrating its effectiveness in differentiating models based on reasoning and knowledge requirements.

Tara Bogavelli, Roshnee Sharma, Hari Subramani

While individual components of agentic architectures have been studied in isolation, there remains limited empirical understanding of how different design dimensions interact within complex multi-agent systems. This study aims to address these gaps by providing a comprehensive enterprise-specific benchmark evaluating 18 distinct agentic configurations across state-of-the-art large language models. We examine four critical agentic system dimensions: orchestration strategy, agent prompt implementation (ReAct versus function calling), memory architecture, and thinking tool integration. Our benchmark reveals significant model-specific architectural preferences that challenge the prevalent one-size-fits-all paradigm in agentic AI systems. It also reveals significant weaknesses in overall agentic performance on enterprise tasks with the highest scoring models achieving a maximum of only 35.3\% success on the more complex task and 70.8\% on the simpler task. We hope these findings inform the design of future agentic systems by enabling more empirically backed decisions regarding architectural components and model selection.