Automated Transcript Analysis for Detecting Flaws in Agentic Benchmarks

Capabilities of frontier models are often assessed using agentic benchmarks. To trust these results, benchmarks must accurately measure what they claim to and be free from invalidating flaws. Previous manual audits of benchmarks such as SWE-Bench-Verified have uncovered several validity issues in transcripts. However, manual review is difficult to scale, and it is unclear whether automated methods can reliably surface flaws that compromise benchmark validity. In this paper, we developed AI scanners to detect four types of validity issues: ground truth access, tool failure, guessing vulnerability, and answer format ambiguity. We produced grading rubrics for each to instruct human labeling, and evaluated the scanners against human labels on a held-out test set of Inspect Evals benchmarks. Our scanners identified several verified quality issues in five widely used benchmarks, including cases unlikely to be caught by random manual inspection. Not all cases were identified, and scanner performance varied substantially across benchmarks, criteria and models. We highlight several open challenges to be addressed to improve scanners for stronger quality assurance claims, including broader standardization gaps in the evaluation field that degrade scanner performance. Together, these results serve as a proof of concept for using automated transcript analysis to audit benchmark quality more broadly.

Developing and Maintaining an Open-Source Repository of AI Evaluations: Challenges and Insights

AI evaluations have become critical tools for assessing large language model capabilities and safety. This paper presents practical insights from eight months of maintaining $inspect\_evals$, an open-source repository of 70+ community-contributed AI evaluations. We identify key challenges in implementing and maintaining AI evaluations and develop solutions including: (1) a structured cohort management framework for scaling community contributions, (2) statistical methodologies for optimal resampling and cross-model comparison with uncertainty quantification, and (3) systematic quality control processes for reproducibility. Our analysis reveals that AI evaluation requires specialized infrastructure, statistical rigor, and community coordination beyond traditional software development practices.