Yao Huang, Zhiyuan Zeng, Yu Wang, Zhitong Zhu, Dingcheng Duan, Hao Li, Shangzhi Xu, Yifan Wang 等 17 位作者
As frontier language models grow increasingly capable and autonomous, independent third-party evaluations are critical for characterizing their systemic safety risks. While closed-source releases are routinely accompanied by comprehensive system cards, open-weight models receive less scrutiny regarding frontier risks. To address this gap, we present an independent safety evaluation of DeepSeek V4.1 Flash-1017, the latest version of V4.1 Flash that departs from V4 with a new architecture, scaled-up training, and strong agentic capabilities. Drawing on the EU General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, we evaluate the model across 34 benchmarks, including 5 in-house suites, spanning evaluation integrity, loss of control, and harmful manipulation. Conforming to the AEF-1 standard, we compare V4.1 Flash-1017 against V4.1 Flash, earlier DeepSeek V4 models, and leading closed-source systems (GPT-6 Astra, GPT-5.6 Sol, and Gemini 3.8 Flash). Overall, V4.1 Flash-1017 shows substantial safety improvements over the V4 generation and approaches or matches leading closed-source baselines on several dimensions, while still exhibiting notable behaviors that warrant continued attention. Building on our findings, we highlight three key observations and recommendations. First, because safety can shift and even regress across minor updates, developers should integrate safety evaluation into incremental releases. Second, as final-turn outputs and end-state checks alone cannot reliably detect loss-of-control behaviors, deployments require process-level observability across both reasoning traces and action logs. Third, because public benchmarks elicit strong evaluation awareness and face data contamination risks, developing private benchmarks is essential for trustworthy frontier evaluation.
Large language model agents have enabled software development through natural-language interaction, but extending this paradigm to end-to-end game development remains challenging. Building a playable game requires coordinating code, scenes, assets, animations, physics, and configurations, while allowing developers to validate their integrated behavior through interactive testing. We introduce VibeGame, a framework for creating complete 2D game projects from natural-language prompts and optional reference images. Its AI-native game engine represents project state as schema-validated structured text and provides frame-synchronous runtime control, enabling agents to inspect game states, execute actions, and verify behavior at their own pace. Built upon this interface, we design an Adversarial Agent Team of eight specialized agents to separate implementation from review, so that problems are found and fixed through multi-round loops. For each conducted and accepted project, we further introduce a training-free self-evolution mechanism to distill it into reusable skeletons, modules, and collaboration contracts for future development. We evaluate prompt-assets-to-game (PA2G), where agents are given an asset library, and prompt-to-game (P2G), where agents generate their own art. On a GameCraft-Bench subset, VibeGame in P2G consistently outperforms a range of agent harnesses in either P2G or PA2G with the same underlying model, including GPT-6.1-Sol.
Computer-use agents (CUAs) are commonly evaluated against fixed task specifications, but users may omit requirements, add constraints, or require approval before consequential actions. Completing the benchmark instruction does not guarantee serving the person who asked. We introduce PersonaCUABench, which holds 74 tasks across 11 domains fixed and varies only who asks. A persona agent, playing one of 44 personas in four groups, rewrites each instruction in that user's own words and answers the CUA's questions, while the CUA sees only the dialogue, never the profile or the original instruction. Across nine backbones (3,330 runs), mean task completion falls by 36% relative to the original requests. The losses have two sources: in 59.9% of cells that lose points, the agent engages with what the user asked for and still gets it wrong, and 11.2% are stops the user requested that the checker scores as failures. Even when a persona request is fully completed, the user gives the top satisfaction rating in only 62.7% of cells, against 84.1% for the original requests. CUAs should therefore be evaluated not only on task completion but also on whether they meet the requirements and constraints users express. Code: https://github.com/MatrAIx-ai/PersonaCUABench. Project page: https://matraix.ai/research/persona-cua.html