Zerui Cheng

Zerui Cheng, Jiashuo Liu, Chunjie Wu et al.

The main issue with most evaluation schemes today is their "static" nature: the same problems are reused repeatedly, allowing for memorization, format exploitation, and eventual saturation. To measure genuine AI progress, we need evaluation that is robust by construction, not by post-hoc detection. In response, we propose VeRA (Verified Reasoning Data Augmentation), a framework that converts benchmark problems into executable specifications, comprising (i) a natural language template with placeholder slots, (ii) a coherent generator that samples valid configurations, and (iii) a deterministic verifier that validates parameters and calculates the corresponding correct answers for each configuration. From a single seed problem, VeRA automatically creates unlimited verified variants with reliable labels at near-zero marginal cost without human involvement. VeRA operates in two complementary modes. VeRA-E (equivalent) rewrites problems while keeping the underlying logic intact, useful for detecting memorization versus genuine reasoning. VeRA-H (hardened) systematically increases complexity while remaining verifiable, enabling reliable creation and labelling of fresh difficult tasks at the boundary of intelligence. Evaluating 16 frontier models with VeRA, we find: (i) VeRA-E improves evaluation quality and reveals contamination patterns. (ii) VeRA-H enables human-free generation of hard tasks with reliable labels. (iii) VeRA establishes verified benchmarks as a general paradigm. VeRA reconceptualizes benchmarks from static objects used until exhausted, to executable specifications generating fresh, verified instances on demand, enhancing robustness and cost-effectiveness for evaluation. With VeRA, we envision that evaluation in any verifiable domain can scale indefinitely without sacrificing label integrity. To stimulate future research, we have open-sourced all code and datasets.

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.

Long Phan, Alice Gatti, Ziwen Han et al. · amazon-science, apple-ml

Benchmarks are important tools for tracking the rapid advancements in large language model (LLM) capabilities. However, benchmarks are not keeping pace in difficulty: LLMs now achieve over 90\% accuracy on popular benchmarks like MMLU, limiting informed measurement of state-of-the-art LLM capabilities. In response, we introduce Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), a multi-modal benchmark at the frontier of human knowledge, designed to be the final closed-ended academic benchmark of its kind with broad subject coverage. HLE consists of 2,500 questions across dozens of subjects, including mathematics, humanities, and the natural sciences. HLE is developed globally by subject-matter experts and consists of multiple-choice and short-answer questions suitable for automated grading. Each question has a known solution that is unambiguous and easily verifiable, but cannot be quickly answered via internet retrieval. State-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate low accuracy and calibration on HLE, highlighting a significant gap between current LLM capabilities and the expert human frontier on closed-ended academic questions. To inform research and policymaking upon a clear understanding of model capabilities, we publicly release HLE at https://lastexam.ai.

Zihan Zheng, Zerui Cheng, Zeyu Shen et al.

Recent reports claim that large language models (LLMs) now outperform elite humans in competitive programming. Drawing on knowledge from a group of medalists in international algorithmic contests, we revisit this claim, examining how LLMs differ from human experts and where limitations still remain. We introduce LiveCodeBench Pro, a benchmark composed of problems from Codeforces, ICPC, and IOI that are continuously updated to reduce the likelihood of data contamination. A team of Olympiad medalists annotates every problem for algorithmic categories and conducts a line-by-line analysis of failed model-generated submissions. Using this new data and benchmark, we find that frontier models still have significant limitations: without external tools, the best model achieves only 53% pass@1 on medium-difficulty problems and 0% on hard problems, domains where expert humans still excel. We also find that LLMs succeed at implementation-heavy problems but struggle with nuanced algorithmic reasoning and complex case analysis, often generating confidently incorrect justifications. High performance appears largely driven by implementation precision and tool augmentation, not superior reasoning. LiveCodeBench Pro thus highlights the significant gap to human grandmaster levels, while offering fine-grained diagnostics to steer future improvements in code-centric LLM reasoning.

Jianzhu Yao, Kevin Wang, Ryan Hsieh et al.

Reasoning and strategic behavior in social interactions is a hallmark of intelligence. This form of reasoning is significantly more sophisticated than isolated planning or reasoning tasks in static settings (e.g., math problem solving). In this paper, we present Strategic Planning, Interaction, and Negotiation (SPIN-Bench), a new multi-domain evaluation designed to measure the intelligence of strategic planning and social reasoning. While many existing benchmarks focus on narrow planning or single-agent reasoning, SPIN-Bench combines classical PDDL tasks, competitive board games, cooperative card games, and multi-agent negotiation scenarios in one unified framework. The framework includes both a benchmark as well as an arena to simulate and evaluate the variety of social settings to test reasoning and strategic behavior of AI agents. We formulate the benchmark SPIN-Bench by systematically varying action spaces, state complexity, and the number of interacting agents to simulate a variety of social settings where success depends on not only methodical and step-wise decision making, but also conceptual inference of other (adversarial or cooperative) participants. Our experiments reveal that while contemporary LLMs handle basic fact retrieval and short-range planning reasonably well, they encounter significant performance bottlenecks in tasks requiring deep multi-hop reasoning over large state spaces and socially adept coordination under uncertainty. We envision SPIN-Bench as a catalyst for future research on robust multi-agent planning, social reasoning, and human--AI teaming. Project Website: https://spinbench.github.io/

Zerui Cheng, Edoardo Contente, Ben Finch et al.

The current paradigm of AI model distribution presents a fundamental dichotomy: models are either closed and API-gated, sacrificing transparency and local execution, or openly distributed, sacrificing monetization and control. We introduce OML(Open-access, Monetizable, and Loyal AI Model Serving), a primitive that enables a new distribution paradigm where models can be freely distributed for local execution while maintaining cryptographically enforced usage authorization. We are the first to introduce and formalize this problem, introducing rigorous security definitions tailored to the unique challenge of white-box model protection: model extraction resistance and permission forgery resistance. We prove fundamental bounds on the achievability of OML properties and characterize the complete design space of potential constructions, from obfuscation-based approaches to cryptographic solutions. To demonstrate practical feasibility, we present OML 1.0, a novel OML construction leveraging AI-native model fingerprinting coupled with crypto-economic enforcement mechanisms. Through extensive theoretical analysis and empirical evaluation, we establish OML as a foundational primitive necessary for sustainable AI ecosystems. This work opens a new research direction at the intersection of cryptography, machine learning, and mechanism design, with critical implications for the future of AI distribution and governance.

Jianzhu Yao, Hongxu Su, Taobo Liao et al.

Neural networks increasingly run on hardware outside the user's control (cloud GPUs, inference marketplaces). Yet ML-as-a-Service reveals little about what actually ran or whether returned outputs faithfully reflect the intended inputs. Users lack recourse against service downgrades (model swaps, quantization, graph rewrites, or discrepancies like altered ad embeddings). Verifying outputs is hard because floating-point(FP) execution on heterogeneous accelerators is inherently nondeterministic. Existing approaches are either impractical for real FP neural networks or reintroduce vendor trust. We present NAO: a Nondeterministic tolerance Aware Optimistic verification protocol that accepts outputs within principled operator-level acceptance regions rather than requiring bitwise equality. NAO combines two error models: (i) sound per-operator IEEE-754 worst-case bounds and (ii) tight empirical percentile profiles calibrated across hardware. Discrepancies trigger a Merkle-anchored, threshold-guided dispute game that recursively partitions the computation graph until one operator remains, where adjudication reduces to a lightweight theoretical-bound check or a small honest-majority vote against empirical thresholds. Unchallenged results finalize after a challenge window, without requiring trusted hardware or deterministic kernels. We implement NAO as a PyTorch-compatible runtime and a contract layer currently deployed on Ethereum Holesky testnet. The runtime instruments graphs, computes per-operator bounds, and runs unmodified vendor kernels in FP32 with negligible overhead (0.3% on Qwen3-8B). Across CNNs, Transformers and diffusion models on A100, H100, RTX6000, RTX4090, empirical thresholds are $10^2-10^3$ times tighter than theoretical bounds, and bound-aware adversarial attacks achieve 0% success. NAO reconciles scalability with verifiability for real-world heterogeneous ML compute.

Zerui Cheng, Stella Wohnig, Ruchika Gupta et al.

The meteoric rise of AI, with its rapidly expanding market capitalization, presents both transformative opportunities and critical challenges. Chief among these is the urgent need for a new, unified paradigm for trustworthy evaluation, as current benchmarks increasingly reveal critical vulnerabilities. Issues like data contamination and selective reporting by model developers fuel hype, while inadequate data quality control can lead to biased evaluations that, even if unintentionally, may favor specific approaches. As a flood of participants enters the AI space, this "Wild West" of assessment makes distinguishing genuine progress from exaggerated claims exceptionally difficult. Such ambiguity blurs scientific signals and erodes public confidence, much as unchecked claims would destabilize financial markets reliant on credible oversight from agencies like Moody's. In high-stakes human examinations (e.g., SAT, GRE), substantial effort is devoted to ensuring fairness and credibility; why settle for less in evaluating AI, especially given its profound societal impact? This position paper argues that the current laissez-faire approach is unsustainable. We contend that true, sustainable AI advancement demands a paradigm shift: a unified, live, and quality-controlled benchmarking framework robust by construction, not by mere courtesy and goodwill. To this end, we dissect the systemic flaws undermining today's AI evaluation, distill the essential requirements for a new generation of assessments, and introduce PeerBench (with its prototype implementation at https://www.peerbench.ai/), a community-governed, proctored evaluation blueprint that embodies this paradigm through sealed execution, item banking with rolling renewal, and delayed transparency. Our goal is to pave the way for evaluations that can restore integrity and deliver genuinely trustworthy measures of AI progress.

Zeshi Dai, Zimo Peng, Zerui Cheng et al.

We present CAIA, a benchmark exposing a critical blind spot in AI evaluation: the inability of state-of-the-art models to operate in adversarial, high-stakes environments where misinformation is weaponized and errors are irreversible. While existing benchmarks measure task completion in controlled settings, real-world deployment demands resilience against active deception. Using crypto markets as a testbed where $30 billion was lost to exploits in 2024, we evaluate 17 models on 178 time-anchored tasks requiring agents to distinguish truth from manipulation, navigate fragmented information landscapes, and make irreversible financial decisions under adversarial pressure. Our results reveal a fundamental capability gap: without tools, even frontier models achieve only 28% accuracy on tasks junior analysts routinely handle. Tool augmentation improves performance but plateaus at 67.4% versus 80% human baseline, despite unlimited access to professional resources. Most critically, we uncover a systematic tool selection catastrophe: models preferentially choose unreliable web search over authoritative data, falling for SEO-optimized misinformation and social media manipulation. This behavior persists even when correct answers are directly accessible through specialized tools, suggesting foundational limitations rather than knowledge gaps. We also find that Pass@k metrics mask dangerous trial-and-error behavior for autonomous deployment. The implications extend beyond crypto to any domain with active adversaries, e.g. cybersecurity, content moderation, etc. We release CAIA with contamination controls and continuous updates, establishing adversarial robustness as a necessary condition for trustworthy AI autonomy. The benchmark reveals that current models, despite impressive reasoning scores, remain fundamentally unprepared for environments where intelligence must survive active opposition.

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.