Huanzhi Mao

Yuanli Wang, Yaoyao Qian, Yue Zhang et al.

LLM agents have made rapid progress on software engineering and ML research tasks, but these advances often assume access to a working runnable environment. For research artifacts released alongside published papers, setting up such an environment from a fresh machine remains a major bottleneck. Existing environment setup benchmarks do not cover the full scope of research artifact deployment, which involves multi-language toolchains, system-level dependencies beyond containers (e.g. GPU/CUDA and kernel configurations), and legacy artifact compatibility. We introduce DeployBench, a multi-domain benchmark of 51 research-artifact deployment tasks spanning AI/ML, computer systems, and scientific computing, covering all these dimensions. Each task is verified by a hidden pipeline that executes the paper's designated experiment and checks its outputs. Evaluating four state-of-the-art LLMs with OpenHands yields pass-rates from 7.8% - 51.0% . Failures are dominated by a completion-judgment problem: 97 of 154 are agent-terminated self-stops, where the agent's pre-finish checks validate a different or weaker target than the paper-specific task requires. DeployBench highlights the gap between current agents and autonomous deployment, and offers a realistic testbed for scientific research agents.

Hanchen Li, Qiuyang Mang, Runyuan He et al.

Agentic LLM applications interleave LLM generation requests with tool calls. These tool calls break the continuity of the workflow by creating pauses between LLM requests, bringing many challenges for the serving system, especially under multi-turn scenarios. Each pause potentially causes KV cache eviction and extra waiting time before entering the continuous batch for the following LLM request. Since these pauses happen for each call, this problem becomes increasingly severe as turn number grow for agentic programs. Previous works either fail to incorporate information from the tool call, evicting KV cache that leads to repetitive prefill or loading, or ignore the continuity of a multi-turn program, creating waiting time between turns that increases per-request latency. We present Continuum, a serving system to optimize job completion time for multi-turn agent workloads by combining tool-aware KV cache timeout with program-level scheduling. By predicting tool call durations in agentic workflows, Continuum selectively pins the KV cache in GPU memory with a time-to-live value based on total turn number. When combined with program-level first-come-first-serve, Continuum prevents scheduling bubbles, preserves multi-turn continuity, and optimizes for throughput for complex agentic workflows. By modeling the variability of tool call and agent program continuity, Continuum outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. Our evaluation on real-world agentic workloads (SWE-Bench and BFCL) with Llama-3.1 8B/70B models shows that Continuum significantly improves the average job completion times, and remains performant across different hardware setups and DRAM offloading schemes. Preview code is available at: https://github.com/Hanchenli/vllm-continuum

Qiuyang Mang, Wenhao Chai, Zhifei Li et al.

We introduce FrontierCS, a benchmark of 156 open-ended problems across diverse areas of computer science, designed and reviewed by experts, including CS PhDs and top-tier competitive programming participants and problem setters. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on tasks with known optimal solutions, FrontierCS targets problems where the optimal solution is unknown, but the quality of a solution can be objectively evaluated. Models solve these tasks by implementing executable programs rather than outputting a direct answer. FrontierCS includes algorithmic problems, which are often NP-hard variants of competitive programming problems with objective partial scoring, and research problems with the same property. For each problem we provide an expert reference solution and an automatic evaluator. Combining open-ended design, measurable progress, and expert curation, FrontierCS provides a benchmark at the frontier of computer-science difficulty. Empirically, we find that frontier reasoning models still lag far behind human experts on both the algorithmic and research tracks, that increasing reasoning budgets alone does not close this gap, and that models often over-optimize for generating merely workable code instead of discovering high-quality algorithms and system designs.

Alejandro Cuadron, Dacheng Li, Wenjie Ma et al.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) represent a breakthrough in AI problem-solving capabilities, but their effectiveness in interactive environments can be limited. This paper introduces and analyzes overthinking in LRMs. A phenomenon where models favor extended internal reasoning chains over environmental interaction. Through experiments on software engineering tasks using SWE Bench Verified, we observe three recurring patterns: Analysis Paralysis, Rogue Actions, and Premature Disengagement. We propose a framework to study these behaviors, which correlates with human expert assessments, and analyze 4018 trajectories. We observe that higher overthinking scores correlate with decreased performance, with reasoning models exhibiting stronger tendencies toward overthinking compared to non-reasoning models. Our analysis reveals that simple efforts to mitigate overthinking in agentic environments, such as selecting the solution with the lower overthinking score, can improve model performance by almost 30% while reducing computational costs by 43%. These results suggest that mitigating overthinking has strong practical implications. We suggest that by leveraging native function-calling capabilities and selective reinforcement learning overthinking tendencies could be mitigated. We also open-source our evaluation framework and dataset to facilitate research in this direction at https://github.com/AlexCuadron/Overthinking.

Guangyu Feng, Huanzhi Mao, Prabal Dutta et al.

Function calling, also known as tool use, is a core capability of modern LLM agents but is typically constrained by synchronous execution semantics. Under these semantics, LLM decoding is blocked until each function call completes, resulting in increasing end-to-end latency. In this work, we introduce AsyncFC, a pure execution-layer framework that decouples LLM decoding from function execution, enabling overlap between model decoding and function execution as well as inter-function parallelism when dependencies permit. AsyncFC layers over existing models and unmodified function implementations, requiring no fine-tuning or changes to the standard synchronous function-calling protocol. Across standard function-calling benchmarks and adapted software engineering benchmarks, AsyncFC significantly reduces end-to-end task completion time while preserving task accuracy. Furthermore, these results reveal that LLMs possess a native capability to reason over symbolic futures that represent unresolved execution results, enabling an asynchronous paradigm for model-tool interaction.

Shang Zhou, Wenhao Chai, Kaiyuan Liu et al.

Test-time compute scaling is a primary axis for improving LLM reasoning. Existing methods primarily scale depth by extending a single reasoning trace. Scaling breadth by sampling multiple candidates in parallel is straightforward, but introduces a selection bottleneck: choosing the best candidate without a ground-truth verifier, since pointwise LLM judging is noisy and biased. To address this, we introduce OpenDeepThink, a population-based test-time compute framework that selects via pairwise Bradley-Terry comparison. Each generation, the LLM judges random pairs of candidates and aggregates votes via Bradley-Terry into a global ranking; top-ranked candidates are preserved and the top three quarters are mutated using the natural-language critiques produced during comparison; the bottom quarter is discarded. OpenDeepThink raises Gemini 3.1 Pro's effective Codeforces Elo by +405 points in eight sequential LLM-call rounds (~27 minutes wall-clock). The pipeline transfers across weaker and stronger models without retuning, and on the multi-domain HLE benchmark, gains appear concentrated in objectively verifiable domains and reverse in subjective ones. We release CF-73, a curated set of 73 expert-rated Codeforces problems with International Grandmaster annotation and 99% local-evaluation agreement against the official verdict.

Runyuan He, Qiuyang Mang, Shang Zhou et al.

Many real-world coding challenges are open-ended and admit no known optimal solution. Yet, recent progress in LLM coding has focused on well-defined tasks such as feature implementation, bug fixing, and competitive programming. Open-ended coding remains a weak spot for LLMs, largely because open-ended training problems are scarce and expensive to construct. Our goal is to synthesize open-ended coding problems at scale to train stronger LLM coders. We introduce FrontierSmith, an automated system for iteratively evolving open-ended problems from existing closed-ended coding tasks. Starting from competitive programming problems, FrontierSmith generates candidate open-ended variants by changing the problems'goals, restricting outputs, and generalizing inputs. It then uses a quantitative idea divergence metric to select problems that elicit genuinely diverse approaches from different solvers. Agents then generate test cases and verifiers for the surviving candidates. On two open-ended coding benchmarks, training on our synthesized data yields substantial gains over the base models: Qwen3.5-9B improves by +8.82 score on FrontierCS and +306.36 (Elo-rating-based performance) on ALE-bench; Qwen3.5-27B improves by +12.12 and +309.12, respectively. The synthesized problems also make agents take more turns and use more tokens, similar to human-curated ones, suggesting that closed-ended seeds can be a practical starting point for long-horizon coding data.

Shang Zhou, Zihan Zheng, Kaiyuan Liu et al.

Writing competitive programming problems is exacting. Authors must: set constraints, input distributions, and edge cases that rule out shortcuts; target specific algorithms (e.g., max-flow, dynamic programming, data structures); and calibrate complexity beyond the reach of most competitors. We argue that this makes for an ideal test of general large language model capabilities and study whether they can do this reliably. We introduce AutoCode, which uses multiple rounds of validation to yield competition-grade problem statements and test cases. On held-out problems, AutoCode test suites approach 99% consistency with official judgments, a significant improvement over current state-of-the-art methods like HardTests, which achieve less than 81%. Furthermore, starting with a random seed problem, AutoCode can create novel variants with reference and brute-force solutions. By cross-verifying these generated solutions against test cases, we can further filter out malformed problems. Our system ensures high correctness, as verified by human experts. AutoCode successfully produces novel problems judged by Grandmaster-level (top 0.3%) competitive programmers to be of contest quality.