Recent years have seen multimodal agentic systems move from occasionally being able to solve small toy problems to being regularly deployed for challenging real-world problems (the dream of most AI research). Yet, the current evaluation methods and the available benchmarks for agentic systems are struggling to keep up with these rapid advances, dramatically slowing true progress. We believe that the current issue with evaluating agentic systems stems from the lack of feedback during the intermediate task-solving stages for these nontraditional systems. Agentic systems think more like humans, often act step-by-step (Wooldridge, 1999) and often host very human-like symbolic communications internally to solve problems (Zhuge et al., 2023). And thus agentic systems should be evaluated like a human, with rich evaluative feedback which looks at the full thought and action trajectory; evaluating an agentic system in the traditional way is like evaluating a student using multiple-choice testing--a comparatively unreliable estimator (Park, 2010). For example, while SWE-Bench (Yang et al., 2024a) is widespread, its evaluation method, which relies solely on the final resolve rate for long-term automated repair tasks, does not effectively pinpoint what is happening within agentic systems that affects the resolve rate. On the other hand, performing a better evaluation with a human is prohibitively expensive. We instead propose that agentic systems should be used to evaluate agentic systems. Inspired by LLM-as-a-Judge (Zheng et al., 2024; Fu et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024b), which uses LLMs to evaluate LLMs, we call this framework Agent-as-a-Judge, of which it is

The Languini Kitchen serves as both a research collective and codebase designed to empower researchers with limited computational resources to contribute meaningfully to the field of language modelling. We introduce an experimental protocol that enables model comparisons based on equivalent compute, measured in accelerator hours. The number of tokens on which a model is trained is defined by the model's throughput and the chosen compute class. Notably, this approach avoids constraints on critical hyperparameters which affect total parameters or floating-point operations. For evaluation, we pre-process an existing large, diverse, and high-quality dataset of books that surpasses existing academic benchmarks in quality, diversity, and document length. On it, we compare methods based on their empirical scaling trends which are estimated through experiments at various levels of compute. This work also provides two baseline models: a feed-forward model derived from the GPT-2 architecture and a recurrent model in the form of a novel LSTM with ten-fold throughput. While the GPT baseline achieves better perplexity throughout all our levels of compute, our LSTM baseline exhibits a predictable and more favourable scaling law. This is due to the improved throughput and the need for fewer training tokens to achieve the same decrease in test perplexity. Extrapolating the scaling laws leads of both models results in an intersection at roughly 50,000 accelerator hours. We hope this work can serve as the foundation for meaningful and reproducible language modelling research.

We present AlphaChute: a state-of-the-art algorithm that achieves superhuman performance in the ancient game of Chutes and Ladders. We prove that our algorithm converges to the Nash equilibrium in constant time, and therefore is -- to the best of our knowledge -- the first such formal solution to this game. Surprisingly, despite all this, our implementation of AlphaChute remains relatively straightforward due to domain-specific adaptations. We provide the source code for AlphaChute here in our Appendix.