Yijun Zhou, Minghao Shao, Ke Zhang, Renkai Yuan, Hongbo Yuan, Bin Hu, Bozhao Qian, Hongxia Shen 等 23 位作者
Game development stresses coding agents in ways general software engineering does not: correctness depends on how engine APIs, serialized scene state, and runtime behavior interact, not on source code alone. Existing benchmarks mainly target platforms such as Godot and heavily rely on LLM judges or coarse task-level outcomes. We present UnityBench-Mini3D, a benchmark of 77 project-level Unity tasks organized around seven expert-defined skill categories rather than tutorials or genres, with three difficulty tiers. Each task pairs a complete Unity project with natural-language requirements and is evaluated using 1,178 held-out, human-authored milestone tests covering scene structure, component configuration, and runtime behavior. This in-engine evaluation provides deterministic partial credit, localizes failures, and distinguishes partial implementations from complete solutions without relying on subjective judges. Across 21 models and 9 coding harnesses, the average pass rate reaches 80.9% on easy tasks but falls to 35.2% on hard tasks, with just 57.7% overall. UnityBench-Mini3D provides a reproducible, diagnostic testbed distinguishing systems across difficulty levels.
Frontier model progress is often measured using academic benchmarks that provide a limited view of performance on open-ended, economically consequential tasks in high-stakes professional domains where practical returns matter most. We introduce Professional Reasoning Bench (PRBench), a realistic, open-ended, and difficult benchmark of real-world problems in Finance and Law. We open-source its 1,100 expert-authored tasks and 19,356 expert-curated criteria, making it the largest public, rubric-based benchmark for both legal and finance domains. We recruit 182 qualified professionals, holding JDs, CFAs, or 6+ years of experience, who contributed questions inspired by their actual workflows. This process yields significant diversity, with tasks spanning 114 countries and 47 US jurisdictions. Our expert-curated rubrics are validated through a rigorous quality pipeline, including independent expert validation. Subsequent evaluation of 20 leading models reveals substantial room for improvement, with top scores of only 0.39 (Finance) and 0.37 (Legal) on our Hard subsets. We further catalog associated economic impacts of the prompts and analyze performance using human-annotated rubric categories. Common failure modes include inaccurate judgments, a lack of process transparency and incomplete reasoning, highlighting critical gaps in their reliability for professional adoption.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表