Jay Vaghasiya

Vishvesh Bhat, Jay Vaghasiya, Muhammad Ahmed Mohsin et al.

Tool-calling benchmarks are increasingly used to rank language-model agents, yet their scores are often treated as ground truth without validating the evaluators themselves. We present a systematic validity and reproducibility audit of four major tool-calling benchmark families: BFCL v4, τ2-Bench, LiveMCPBench, and MCP-Atlas. Across 496 expert-reviewed benchmark tasks, we find 92 evaluator-human disagreements, corresponding to an 18.5% misalignment rate. The failures are not isolated annotation mistakes: deterministic benchmarks exhibit brittle state matching, trajectory lock-in, incorrect ground truths, substring-based communication failures, and reward-basis misalignment, while LLM-judge benchmarks exhibit rubric drift, hallucinated completion, answer-only scoring, and substantial run-to-run variance. In LiveMCPBench, 23 repeated evaluations of the same setup produce scores ranging from 57.9% to 76.8%, a spread of 18.9 percentage points, large enough to change leaderboard conclusions. These results show that current tool-calling scores can reflect evaluator artifacts rather than agent capability. We introduce a unified taxonomy of tool-calling evaluation failures, release trace-level audit artifacts and corrected evaluation components, and argue for decomposed metrics that separately measure tool invocation, task completion, and outcome verification. Our findings suggest that progress in tool-using agents requires benchmarks whose evaluators are themselves reproducible, auditable, and aligned with human judgments of task success. We further introduce Tool-Veritas, a configurable benchmark that combines deterministic state verification with optional qualitative judging, and Harness Lab, an open-source system for benchmark execution, trace inspection, repeated-run comparison, and evaluator debugging.

Jay Vaghasiya, Omkar Ghugarkar, Vishvesh Bhat et al.

We introduce CoreThink, a state-of-the-art Reasoning Layer built upon a novel reasoning method called General Symbolics. This approach diverges from reasoning paradigms such as test-time scaling, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), and Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR). CoreThink General Symbolic Reasoner (GSR) is specifically structured around three key use cases: tool-calling, code generation, and planning, demonstrating exemplary performance across a total of seven benchmarks in their respective areas. Notably, we are achieving SOTA scores of 66.66% on Livecodebench v6, 89% on Instruction-Following Evals, and 24.4% on ARC-AGI-2. We also present an agentic coding IDE, developed using the principles of General Symbolics, which achieves a state-of-the-art accuracy of 62.3% on SWE-Bench Lite. We are able to achieve these improvements without any fine-tuning or training costs. Our Reasoning Layer is designed to provide a pure performance uplift, ensuring that a model's accuracy on reasoning tasks is never negatively impacted. We argue that incumbent methods will eventually lead to diminishing returns in LLM performance, necessitating the development of new reasoning techniques. This technical report details our approach at a high level and the availability of the CoreThink models for reasoning-intensive use cases.