ASI-Bench: At the Dawn of Artificial Superintelligence

Artificial superintelligence (ASI) requires AI to move beyond mastering existing knowledge toward exploring the unknown, creating new knowledge, and turning new ideas into verifiable results. However, the capabilities of today's AI systems are still largely built on learning, compressing, and applying existing human knowledge. Accordingly, existing benchmarks primarily test whether AI can produce correct answers based on learned knowledge, or whether it can complete tasks under extensive human guidance. We therefore introduce ASI-Bench, the first benchmark to jointly evaluate AI systems' capabilities of innovative exploration and autonomous scientific execution across general research domains, and the first to progressively withdraw human methodological guidance within the same research project to test how far AI can proceed on its own. Built by over 40 experts with the cost of 31,000+ human hours, ASI-Bench contains 60 project-level research tasks across 11 scientific domains and progressively reduces methodological guidance to test whether AI can independently select methods, conduct research, and produce verifiable results. All tasks undergo expert review, AI-assisted auditing, sandbox execution, and scorer validation. Across 18 state-of-the-art agent--model configurations, the average score drops from 50.91 with full methodological guidance to 29.10 with only the method specified and 26.62 when agents must determine the method themselves. This sharp decline shows that current systems remain heavily dependent on human guidance and are still far from autonomously conducting end-to-end, project-level scientific research. ASI-Bench is open to the world. We invite researchers and builders everywhere to contribute new tasks, challenge the limits of today's AI, and help accelerate humanity's collective path toward artificial superintelligence at https://asibench.apexin.ai/submit.

An Empirical Study of Proactive Coding Assistants in Real-World Software Development

Large language model (LLM)-based coding assistants have made substantial progress, yet most systems remain reactive, requiring developers to explicitly formulate their needs. Proactive coding assistants aim to infer latent developer intent from integrated development environment (IDE) interactions and repository context, thereby reducing interaction overhead and supporting more seamless assistance. However, research in this direction is limited by the scarcity of large-scale real-world developer behavior data. Existing studies therefore often rely on LLM-simulated IDE traces, whose fidelity to real development behavior remains unclear. In this paper, we investigate this simulation-to-reality gap through a large-scale empirical study. We collect real IDE interaction traces from 1{,}246 experienced industry developers over three consecutive days using a custom Visual Studio Code extension, and construct paired LLM-simulated traces for controlled comparison. Our analysis shows that simulated traces differ substantially from real traces in behavioral diversity, temporal structure, and exploratory patterns. Based on the collected data, we introduce \textbf{ProCodeBench}, a real-world benchmark for proactive intent prediction. Experiments with representative LLMs, retrieval-augmented methods, and agentic baselines show that current approaches remain far from reliable under real IDE traces, suggesting that simulation-based evaluation can overestimate real-world performance. Finally, our training study shows that simulated data cannot replace real data, but can complement it when used before real-world fine-tuning. These findings highlight the importance of real developer behavior data for evaluating and training proactive coding assistants.

Improving Variable-Length Generation in Diffusion Language Models via Length Regularization

Diffusion Large Language Models (DLLMs) are inherently ill-suited for variable-length generation, as their inference is defined on a fixed-length canvas and implicitly assumes a known target length. When the length is unknown, as in realistic completion and infilling, naively comparing confidence across mask lengths becomes systematically biased, leading to under-generation or redundant continuations. In this paper, we show that this failure arises from an intrinsic lengthinduced bias in generation confidence estimates, leaving existing DLLMs without a robust way to determine generation length and making variablelength inference unreliable. To address this issue, we propose LR-DLLM, a length-regularized inference framework for DLLMs that treats generation length as an explicit variable and achieves reliable length determination at inference time. It decouples semantic compatibility from lengthinduced uncertainty through an explicit length regularization that corrects biased confidence estimates. Based on this, LR-DLLM enables dynamic expansion or contraction of the generation span without modifying the underlying DLLM or its training procedure. Experiments show that LRDLLM achieves 51.3% Pass@1 on HumanEvalInfilling under fully unknown lengths (+13.4% vs. DreamOn) and 51.5% average Pass@1 on four-language McEval (+14.3% vs. DreamOn).