Uzay Girit

Eric J. Michaud, Ziming Liu, Uzay Girit et al.

We propose the Quantization Model of neural scaling laws, explaining both the observed power law dropoff of loss with model and data size, and also the sudden emergence of new capabilities with scale. We derive this model from what we call the Quantization Hypothesis, where network knowledge and skills are "quantized" into discrete chunks ($\textbf{quanta}$). We show that when quanta are learned in order of decreasing use frequency, then a power law in use frequencies explains observed power law scaling of loss. We validate this prediction on toy datasets, then study how scaling curves decompose for large language models. Using language model gradients, we automatically decompose model behavior into a diverse set of skills (quanta). We tentatively find that the frequency at which these quanta are used in the training distribution roughly follows a power law corresponding with the empirical scaling exponent for language models, a prediction of our theory.

Chris Ge, Daria Kryvosheieva, Daniel Fried et al.

As the focus in LLM-based coding shifts from static single-step code generation to multi-step agentic interaction with tools and environments, understanding which tasks will challenge agents and why becomes increasingly difficult. This is compounded by current practice: agent performance is typically measured by aggregate pass rates on benchmarks, but single-number metrics obscure the diversity of tasks within a benchmark. We present a framework for predicting success or failure on individual tasks tailored to the agentic coding regime. Our approach augments Item Response Theory (IRT) with rich features extracted from tasks, including issue statements, repository contexts, solutions, and test cases, and introduces a novel decomposition of agent ability into LLM and scaffold ability components. This parameterization enables us to aggregate evaluation data across heterogeneous leaderboards and accurately predict task-level performance for unseen benchmarks, as well as unseen LLM-scaffold combinations. Our methods have practical utility for benchmark designers, who can better calibrate the difficulty of their new tasks without running computationally expensive agent evaluations.

Kaivalya Hariharan, Uzay Girit, Atticus Wang et al.

Benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) have predominantly assessed short-horizon, localized reasoning. Existing long-horizon suites (e.g. SWE-bench) rely on manually curated issues, so expanding or tuning difficulty demands expensive human effort and evaluations quickly saturate. However, many real-world tasks, such as software engineering or scientific research, require agents to rapidly comprehend and manipulate novel, complex structures dynamically; evaluating these capabilities requires the ability to construct large and varied sets of problems for agents to solve. We introduce Breakpoint, a benchmarking methodology that automatically generates code-repair tasks by adversarially corrupting functions within real-world software repositories. Breakpoint systematically controls task difficulty along two clear dimensions: local reasoning (characterized by code complexity metrics such as cyclomatic complexity) and system-level reasoning (characterized by call-graph centrality and the number of simultaneously corrupted interdependent functions). In experiments across more than 900 generated tasks we demonstrate that our methodology can scale to arbitrary difficulty, with state-of-the-art models' success rates ranging from 55% on the easiest tasks down to 0% on the hardest.