Daily Papers

AI agents hold the potential to revolutionize scientific productivity by automating literature reviews, replicating experiments, analyzing data, and even proposing new directions of inquiry; indeed, there are now many such agents, ranging from general-purpose "deep research" systems to specialized science-specific agents, such as AI Scientist and AIGS. Rigorous evaluation of these agents is critical for progress. Yet existing benchmarks fall short on several fronts: they (1) fail to provide holistic, product-informed measures of real-world use cases such as science research; (2) lack reproducible agent tools necessary for a controlled comparison of core agentic capabilities; (3) do not account for confounding variables such as model cost and tool access; (4) do not provide standardized interfaces for quick agent prototyping and evaluation; and (5) lack comprehensive baseline agents necessary to identify true advances. In response, we define principles and tooling for more rigorously benchmarking agents. Using these, we present AstaBench, a suite that provides the first holistic measure of agentic ability to perform scientific research, comprising 2400+ problems spanning the entire scientific discovery process and multiple scientific domains, and including many problems inspired by actual user requests to deployed Asta agents. Our suite comes with the first scientific research environment with production-grade search tools that enable controlled, reproducible evaluation, better accounting for confounders. Alongside, we provide a comprehensive suite of nine science-optimized classes of Asta agents and numerous baselines. Our extensive evaluation of 57 agents across 22 agent classes reveals several interesting findings, most importantly that despite meaningful progress on certain individual aspects, AI remains far from solving the challenge of science research assistance.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable capabilities across various tasks in different domains. However, the emergence of biases and the potential for generating harmful content in LLMs, particularly under malicious inputs, pose significant challenges. Current mitigation strategies, while effective, are not resilient under adversarial attacks. This paper introduces Resilient Guardrails for Large Language Models (RigorLLM), a novel framework designed to efficiently and effectively moderate harmful and unsafe inputs and outputs for LLMs. By employing a multi-faceted approach that includes energy-based training data augmentation through Langevin dynamics, optimizing a safe suffix for inputs via minimax optimization, and integrating a fusion-based model combining robust KNN with LLMs based on our data augmentation, RigorLLM offers a robust solution to harmful content moderation. Our experimental evaluations demonstrate that RigorLLM not only outperforms existing baselines like OpenAI API and Perspective API in detecting harmful content but also exhibits unparalleled resilience to jailbreaking attacks. The innovative use of constrained optimization and a fusion-based guardrail approach represents a significant step forward in developing more secure and reliable LLMs, setting a new standard for content moderation frameworks in the face of evolving digital threats.

Natural language is an appealing medium for explaining how large language models process and store information, but evaluating the faithfulness of such explanations is challenging. To help address this, we develop two modes of evaluation for natural language explanations that claim individual neurons represent a concept in a text input. In the observational mode, we evaluate claims that a neuron a activates on all and only input strings that refer to a concept picked out by the proposed explanation E. In the intervention mode, we construe E as a claim that the neuron a is a causal mediator of the concept denoted by E. We apply our framework to the GPT-4-generated explanations of GPT-2 XL neurons of Bills et al. (2023) and show that even the most confident explanations have high error rates and little to no causal efficacy. We close the paper by critically assessing whether natural language is a good choice for explanations and whether neurons are the best level of analysis.

This paper examines the role of cognitive biases in the decision-making processes of large language models (LLMs), challenging the conventional goal of eliminating all biases. We show that certain cognitive biases when properly balanced, can enhance decision-making efficiency through rational deviations and heuristic shortcuts. By introducing heuristic moderation and an abstention option, which allows LLMs to withhold responses when uncertain, we reduce error rates, improve decision accuracy, and optimize decision rates. Using the Balance Rigor and Utility (BRU) dataset, developed through expert collaboration, our findings demonstrate that targeted inspection of cognitive biases aligns LLM decisions more closely with human reasoning, enhancing reliability and suggesting strategies for future improvements. This approach offers a novel way to leverage cognitive biases to improve the practical utility of LLMs across various applications.

Artificial intelligence is undergoing the paradigm shift from closed language models to interconnected agent systems capable of external perception and information integration. As a representative embodiment, Deep Research Agents (DRAs) systematically exhibit the capabilities for task decomposition, cross-source retrieval, multi-stage reasoning, and structured output, which markedly enhance performance on complex and open-ended tasks. However, existing benchmarks remain deficient in evaluation dimensions, response formatting, and scoring mechanisms, limiting their capacity to assess such systems effectively. This paper introduces a rigorous benchmark and a multidimensional evaluation framework tailored to DRAs and report-style responses. The benchmark comprises 214 expert-curated challenging queries distributed across 10 broad thematic domains, each accompanied by manually constructed reference bundles to support composite evaluation. The framework enables comprehensive evaluation of long-form reports generated by DRAs, incorporating integrated scoring metrics for semantic quality, topical focus, and retrieval trustworthiness. Extensive experimentation confirms the superior performance of mainstream DRAs over web-search-tool-augmented reasoning models, yet reveals considerable scope for further improvement. This study provides a robust foundation for capability assessment, architectural refinement, and paradigm advancement in DRA systems.

The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred the development of coding agents for real-world code generation. As a widely used benchmark for evaluating the code generation capabilities of these agents, SWE-Bench uses real-world problems based on GitHub issues and their corresponding pull requests. However, the manually written test cases included in these pull requests are often insufficient, allowing generated patches to pass the tests without resolving the underlying issue. To address this challenge, we introduce UTGenerator, an LLM-driven test case generator that automatically analyzes codebases and dependencies to generate test cases for real-world Python projects. Building on UTGenerator, we propose UTBoost, a comprehensive framework for test case augmentation. In our evaluation, we identified 36 task instances with insufficient test cases and uncovered 345 erroneous patches incorrectly labeled as passed in the original SWE Bench. These corrections, impacting 40.9% of SWE-Bench Lite and 24.4% of SWE-Bench Verified leaderboard entries, yield 18 and 11 ranking changes, respectively.

Scientific experimentation, a cornerstone of human progress, demands rigor in reliability, methodical control, and interpretability to yield meaningful results. Despite the growing capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in automating different aspects of the scientific process, automating rigorous experimentation remains a significant challenge. To address this gap, we propose Curie, an AI agent framework designed to embed rigor into the experimentation process through three key components: an intra-agent rigor module to enhance reliability, an inter-agent rigor module to maintain methodical control, and an experiment knowledge module to enhance interpretability. To evaluate Curie, we design a novel experimental benchmark composed of 46 questions across four computer science domains, derived from influential research papers, and widely adopted open-source projects. Compared to the strongest baseline tested, we achieve a 3.4times improvement in correctly answering experimental questions.Curie is open-sourced at https://github.com/Just-Curieous/Curie.

While large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong potential in solving planning problems, there is a trade-off between flexibility and complexity. LLMs, as zero-shot planners themselves, are still not capable of directly generating valid plans for complex planning problems such as multi-constraint or long-horizon tasks. On the other hand, many frameworks aiming to solve complex planning problems often rely on task-specific preparatory efforts, such as task-specific in-context examples and pre-defined critics/verifiers, which limits their cross-task generalization capability. In this paper, we tackle these challenges by observing that the core of many planning problems lies in optimization problems: searching for the optimal solution (best plan) with goals subject to constraints (preconditions and effects of decisions). With LLMs' commonsense, reasoning, and programming capabilities, this opens up the possibilities of a universal LLM-based approach to planning problems. Inspired by this observation, we propose LLMFP, a general-purpose framework that leverages LLMs to capture key information from planning problems and formally formulate and solve them as optimization problems from scratch, with no task-specific examples needed. We apply LLMFP to 9 planning problems, ranging from multi-constraint decision making to multi-step planning problems, and demonstrate that LLMFP achieves on average 83.7% and 86.8% optimal rate across 9 tasks for GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, significantly outperforming the best baseline (direct planning with OpenAI o1-preview) with 37.6% and 40.7% improvements. We also validate components of LLMFP with ablation experiments and analyzed the underlying success and failure reasons.

The advancements of language language models (LLMs) have piqued growing interest in developing LLM-based language agents to automate scientific discovery end-to-end, which has sparked both excitement and skepticism about the true capabilities of such agents. In this work, we argue that for an agent to fully automate scientific discovery, it must be able to complete all essential tasks in the workflow. Thus, we call for rigorous assessment of agents on individual tasks in a scientific workflow before making bold claims on end-to-end automation. To this end, we present ScienceAgentBench, a new benchmark for evaluating language agents for data-driven scientific discovery. To ensure the scientific authenticity and real-world relevance of our benchmark, we extract 102 tasks from 44 peer-reviewed publications in four disciplines and engage nine subject matter experts to validate them. We unify the target output for every task to a self-contained Python program file and employ an array of evaluation metrics to examine the generated programs, execution results, and costs. Each task goes through multiple rounds of manual validation by annotators and subject matter experts to ensure its annotation quality and scientific plausibility. We also propose two effective strategies to mitigate data contamination concerns. Using our benchmark, we evaluate five open-weight and proprietary LLMs, each with three frameworks: direct prompting, OpenHands, and self-debug. Given three attempts for each task, the best-performing agent can only solve 32.4% of the tasks independently and 34.3% with expert-provided knowledge. These results underscore the limited capacities of current language agents in generating code for data-driven discovery, let alone end-to-end automation for scientific research.

Many recent works have explored using language models for planning problems. One line of research focuses on translating natural language descriptions of planning tasks into structured planning languages, such as the planning domain definition language (PDDL). While this approach is promising, accurately measuring the quality of generated PDDL code continues to pose significant challenges. First, generated PDDL code is typically evaluated using planning validators that check whether the problem can be solved with a planner. This method is insufficient because a language model might generate valid PDDL code that does not align with the natural language description of the task. Second, existing evaluation sets often have natural language descriptions of the planning task that closely resemble the ground truth PDDL, reducing the challenge of the task. To bridge this gap, we introduce \benchmarkName, a benchmark designed to evaluate language models' ability to generate PDDL code from natural language descriptions of planning tasks. We begin by creating a PDDL equivalence algorithm that rigorously evaluates the correctness of PDDL code generated by language models by flexibly comparing it against a ground truth PDDL. Then, we present a dataset of 132,037 text-to-PDDL pairs across 13 different tasks, with varying levels of difficulty. Finally, we evaluate several API-access and open-weight language models that reveal this task's complexity. For example, 87.6% of the PDDL problem descriptions generated by GPT-4o are syntactically parseable, 82.2% are valid, solve-able problems, but only 35.1% are semantically correct, highlighting the need for a more rigorous benchmark for this problem.

To truly understand vision models, we must not only interpret their learned features but also validate these interpretations through controlled experiments. Current approaches either provide interpretable features without the ability to test their causal influence, or enable model editing without interpretable controls. We present a unified framework using sparse autoencoders (SAEs) that bridges this gap, allowing us to discover human-interpretable visual features and precisely manipulate them to test hypotheses about model behavior. By applying our method to state-of-the-art vision models, we reveal key differences in the semantic abstractions learned by models with different pre-training objectives. We then demonstrate the practical usage of our framework through controlled interventions across multiple vision tasks. We show that SAEs can reliably identify and manipulate interpretable visual features without model re-training, providing a powerful tool for understanding and controlling vision model behavior. We provide code, demos and models on our project website: https://osu-nlp-group.github.io/SAE-V.

We introduce MSC-Bench, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating multi-hop, end-to-end tool orchestration by LLM agents in a hierarchical Model-Context Protocol (MCP) ecosystem. Existing benchmarks often evaluate tools in isolation, ignoring challenges such as functional overlap and cross-server orchestration, leading to overly optimistic assessments. MSC-Bench addresses these gaps by constructing ground truth through 'equal function sets', allowing objective metrics such as F1 score and reducing the dependency on LLM-as-a-judge evaluation. Organized as a five-level curriculum, it systematically tests agent capabilities from single-tool orchestration to complex cross-server planning, and robustness to out-of-scope requests. Experiments reveal that rigid hierarchies can hinder performance without co-designed strategies, and even state-of-the-art agents exhibit systemic weaknesses in robustness. MSC-Bench provides a diagnostic framework to expose these limitations and guide the development of more capable and efficient tool-using agents. The benchmark and resources are publicly available at https://github.com/snooow1029/MSC_Bench.

Benchmarks are essential for quantitatively tracking progress in AI. As AI agents become increasingly capable, researchers and practitioners have introduced agentic benchmarks to evaluate agents on complex, real-world tasks. These benchmarks typically measure agent capabilities by evaluating task outcomes via specific reward designs. However, we show that many agentic benchmarks have issues task setup or reward design. For example, SWE-bench Verified uses insufficient test cases, while TAU-bench counts empty responses as successful. Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation agents' performance by up to 100% in relative terms. To make agentic evaluation rigorous, we introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience, a survey of best practices, and previously reported issues. When applied to CVE-Bench, a benchmark with a particularly complex evaluation design, ABC reduces the performance overestimation by 33%.

The recent explosion in the capabilities of large language models has led to a wave of interest in how best to prompt a model to perform a given task. While it may be tempting to simply choose a prompt based on average performance on a validation set, this can lead to a deployment where unexpectedly poor responses are generated, especially for the worst-off users. To mitigate this prospect, we propose Prompt Risk Control, a lightweight framework for selecting a prompt based on rigorous upper bounds on families of informative risk measures. We offer methods for producing bounds on a diverse set of metrics, including quantities that measure worst-case responses and disparities in generation quality across the population of users. In addition, we extend the underlying statistical bounding techniques to accommodate the possibility of distribution shifts in deployment. Experiments on applications such as open-ended chat, medical question summarization, and code generation highlight how such a framework can foster responsible deployment by reducing the risk of the worst outcomes.

As machine learning systems become ubiquitous, there has been a surge of interest in interpretable machine learning: systems that provide explanation for their outputs. These explanations are often used to qualitatively assess other criteria such as safety or non-discrimination. However, despite the interest in interpretability, there is very little consensus on what interpretable machine learning is and how it should be measured. In this position paper, we first define interpretability and describe when interpretability is needed (and when it is not). Next, we suggest a taxonomy for rigorous evaluation and expose open questions towards a more rigorous science of interpretable machine learning.

External audits of AI systems are increasingly recognized as a key mechanism for AI governance. The effectiveness of an audit, however, depends on the degree of system access granted to auditors. Recent audits of state-of-the-art AI systems have primarily relied on black-box access, in which auditors can only query the system and observe its outputs. However, white-box access to the system's inner workings (e.g., weights, activations, gradients) allows an auditor to perform stronger attacks, more thoroughly interpret models, and conduct fine-tuning. Meanwhile, outside-the-box access to its training and deployment information (e.g., methodology, code, documentation, hyperparameters, data, deployment details, findings from internal evaluations) allows for auditors to scrutinize the development process and design more targeted evaluations. In this paper, we examine the limitations of black-box audits and the advantages of white- and outside-the-box audits. We also discuss technical, physical, and legal safeguards for performing these audits with minimal security risks. Given that different forms of access can lead to very different levels of evaluation, we conclude that (1) transparency regarding the access and methods used by auditors is necessary to properly interpret audit results, and (2) white- and outside-the-box access allow for substantially more scrutiny than black-box access alone.

Deep Research (DR) agents, powered by advanced Large Language Models (LLMs), have recently garnered increasing attention for their capability in conducting complex research tasks. However, existing literature lacks a rigorous and systematic evaluation of DR Agent's capabilities in critical research analysis. To address this gap, we first propose HisRubric, a novel evaluation framework with a hierarchical analytical structure and a fine-grained grading rubric for rigorously assessing DR agents' capabilities in corporate financial analysis. This framework mirrors the professional analyst's workflow, progressing from data recognition to metric calculation, and finally to strategic summarization and interpretation. Built on this framework, we construct a FinDeepResearch benchmark that comprises 64 listed companies from 8 financial markets across 4 languages, encompassing a total of 15,808 grading items. We further conduct extensive experiments on the FinDeepResearch using 16 representative methods, including 6 DR agents, 5 LLMs equipped with both deep reasoning and search capabilities, and 5 LLMs with deep reasoning capabilities only. The results reveal the strengths and limitations of these approaches across diverse capabilities, financial markets, and languages, offering valuable insights for future research and development. The benchmark and evaluation code will be made publicly available.

Evaluations of large language model (LLM) risks and capabilities are increasingly being incorporated into AI risk management and governance frameworks. Currently, most risk evaluations are conducted by designing inputs that elicit harmful behaviors from the system. However, a fundamental limitation of this approach is that the harmfulness of the behaviors identified during any particular evaluation can only lower bound the model's worst-possible-case behavior. As a complementary method for eliciting harmful behaviors, we propose evaluating LLMs with model tampering attacks which allow for modifications to latent activations or weights. We pit state-of-the-art techniques for removing harmful LLM capabilities against a suite of 5 input-space and 6 model tampering attacks. In addition to benchmarking these methods against each other, we show that (1) model resilience to capability elicitation attacks lies on a low-dimensional robustness subspace; (2) the attack success rate of model tampering attacks can empirically predict and offer conservative estimates for the success of held-out input-space attacks; and (3) state-of-the-art unlearning methods can easily be undone within 16 steps of fine-tuning. Together these results highlight the difficulty of removing harmful LLM capabilities and show that model tampering attacks enable substantially more rigorous evaluations than input-space attacks alone. We release models at https://huggingface.co/LLM-GAT

In this position paper, we argue that human baselines in foundation model evaluations must be more rigorous and more transparent to enable meaningful comparisons of human vs. AI performance, and we provide recommendations and a reporting checklist towards this end. Human performance baselines are vital for the machine learning community, downstream users, and policymakers to interpret AI evaluations. Models are often claimed to achieve "super-human" performance, but existing baselining methods are neither sufficiently rigorous nor sufficiently well-documented to robustly measure and assess performance differences. Based on a meta-review of the measurement theory and AI evaluation literatures, we derive a framework with recommendations for designing, executing, and reporting human baselines. We synthesize our recommendations into a checklist that we use to systematically review 115 human baselines (studies) in foundation model evaluations and thus identify shortcomings in existing baselining methods; our checklist can also assist researchers in conducting human baselines and reporting results. We hope our work can advance more rigorous AI evaluation practices that can better serve both the research community and policymakers. Data is available at: https://github.com/kevinlwei/human-baselines

The release of nnU-Net marked a paradigm shift in 3D medical image segmentation, demonstrating that a properly configured U-Net architecture could still achieve state-of-the-art results. Despite this, the pursuit of novel architectures, and the respective claims of superior performance over the U-Net baseline, continued. In this study, we demonstrate that many of these recent claims fail to hold up when scrutinized for common validation shortcomings, such as the use of inadequate baselines, insufficient datasets, and neglected computational resources. By meticulously avoiding these pitfalls, we conduct a thorough and comprehensive benchmarking of current segmentation methods including CNN-based, Transformer-based, and Mamba-based approaches. In contrast to current beliefs, we find that the recipe for state-of-the-art performance is 1) employing CNN-based U-Net models, including ResNet and ConvNeXt variants, 2) using the nnU-Net framework, and 3) scaling models to modern hardware resources. These results indicate an ongoing innovation bias towards novel architectures in the field and underscore the need for more stringent validation standards in the quest for scientific progress.

Recent popularity surrounds large AI language models due to their impressive natural language capabilities. They contribute significantly to language-related tasks, including prompt-based learning, making them valuable for various specific tasks. This approach unlocks their full potential, enhancing precision and generalization. Research communities are actively exploring their applications, with ChatGPT receiving recognition. Despite extensive research on large language models, their potential in recommendation scenarios still needs to be explored. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating ChatGPT's capabilities as a zero-shot recommender system. Our goals include evaluating its ability to use user preferences for recommendations, reordering existing recommendation lists, leveraging information from similar users, and handling cold-start situations. We assess ChatGPT's performance through comprehensive experiments using three datasets (MovieLens Small, Last.FM, and Facebook Book). We compare ChatGPT's performance against standard recommendation algorithms and other large language models, such as GPT-3.5 and PaLM-2. To measure recommendation effectiveness, we employ widely-used evaluation metrics like Mean Average Precision (MAP), Recall, Precision, F1, normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (nDCG), Item Coverage, Expected Popularity Complement (EPC), Average Coverage of Long Tail (ACLT), Average Recommendation Popularity (ARP), and Popularity-based Ranking-based Equal Opportunity (PopREO). Through thoroughly exploring ChatGPT's abilities in recommender systems, our study aims to contribute to the growing body of research on the versatility and potential applications of large language models. Our experiment code is available on the GitHub repository: https://github.com/sisinflab/Recommender-ChatGPT

In this position paper, we observe that empirical evaluation in Generative AI is at a crisis point since traditional ML evaluation and benchmarking strategies are insufficient to meet the needs of evaluating modern GenAI models and systems. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that these models typically have nearly unbounded input and output spaces, typically do not have a well defined ground truth target, and typically exhibit strong feedback loops and prediction dependence based on context of previous model outputs. On top of these critical issues, we argue that the problems of {\em leakage} and {\em contamination} are in fact the most important and difficult issues to address for GenAI evaluations. Interestingly, the field of AI Competitions has developed effective measures and practices to combat leakage for the purpose of counteracting cheating by bad actors within a competition setting. This makes AI Competitions an especially valuable (but underutilized) resource. Now is time for the field to view AI Competitions as the gold standard for empirical rigor in GenAI evaluation, and to harness and harvest their results with according value.

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has significantly pushed the frontiers of program synthesis. Advancement of LLM-based program synthesis calls for a thorough evaluation of LLM-generated code. Most evaluation frameworks focus on the (functional) correctness of generated code; efficiency, as an important measure of code quality, has been overlooked in existing evaluations. In this work, we develop ENAMEL (EfficeNcy AutoMatic EvaLuator), a rigorous and high-standard benchmark for evaluating the capability of LLMs in generating efficient code. Firstly, we propose a new efficiency metric called eff@k, which generalizes the pass@k metric from correctness to efficiency and appropriately handles right-censored execution time. Furthermore, we derive an unbiased and variance-reduced estimator of eff@k via Rao--Blackwellization; we also provide a numerically stable implementation for the new estimator. Secondly, to set a high-standard for efficiency evaluation, we employ a human expert to design best algorithms and implementations as our reference solutions of efficiency, many of which are much more efficient than existing canonical solutions in HumanEval and HumanEval+. Moreover, to ensure a rigorous evaluation, we employ a human expert to curate strong test case generators to filter out wrong code and differentiate suboptimal algorithms. An extensive study across 30 popular LLMs using our benchmark ENAMEL shows that LLMs still fall short of generating expert-level efficient code. Using two subsets of our problem set, we demonstrate that such deficiency is because current LLMs struggle in designing advanced algorithms and are barely aware of implementation optimization. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/q-rz/enamel .

Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to directly generate correct plans for complex multi-constraint planning problems, even with self-verification and self-critique. For example, a U.S. domestic travel planning benchmark TravelPlanner was proposed in Xie et al. (2024), where the best LLM OpenAI o1-preview can only find viable travel plans with a 10% success rate given all needed information. In this work, we tackle this by proposing an LLM-based planning framework that formalizes and solves complex multi-constraint planning problems as constrained satisfiability problems, which are further consumed by sound and complete satisfiability solvers. We start with TravelPlanner as the primary use case and show that our framework achieves a success rate of 93.9% and is effective with diverse paraphrased prompts. More importantly, our framework has strong zero-shot generalizability, successfully handling unseen constraints in our newly created unseen international travel dataset and generalizing well to new fundamentally different domains. Moreover, when user input queries are infeasible, our framework can identify the unsatisfiable core, provide failure reasons, and offers personalized modification suggestions. We show that our framework can modify and solve for an average of 81.6% and 91.7% unsatisfiable queries from two datasets and prove with ablations that all key components of our framework are effective and necessary. Project page: https://sites.google.com/view/llm-rwplanning.

Program synthesis has been long studied with recent approaches focused on directly using the power of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate code. Programming benchmarks, with curated synthesis problems and test-cases, are used to measure the performance of various LLMs on code synthesis. However, these test-cases can be limited in both quantity and quality for fully assessing the functional correctness of the generated code. Such limitation in the existing benchmarks begs the following question: In the era of LLMs, is the code generated really correct? To answer this, we propose EvalPlus -- a code synthesis evaluation framework to rigorously benchmark the functional correctness of LLM-synthesized code. EvalPlus augments a given evaluation dataset with large amounts of test-cases newly produced by an automatic test input generator, powered by both LLM- and mutation-based strategies. While EvalPlus is general, we extend the test-cases of the popular HumanEval benchmark by 80x to build HumanEval+. Our extensive evaluation across 26 popular LLMs (e.g., GPT-4 and ChatGPT) demonstrates that HumanEval+ is able to catch significant amounts of previously undetected wrong code synthesized by LLMs, reducing the pass@k by up-to 19.3-28.9%. We also surprisingly found that test insufficiency can lead to mis-ranking. For example, both WizardCoder-CodeLlama and Phind-CodeLlama now outperform ChatGPT on HumanEval+, while none of them could on HumanEval. Our work not only indicates that prior popular code synthesis evaluation results do not accurately reflect the true performance of LLMs for code synthesis, but also opens up a new direction to improve such programming benchmarks through automated testing. We have open-sourced our tools, enhanced datasets as well as all LLM-generated code at https://github.com/evalplus/evalplus to facilitate and accelerate future LLM-for-code research.