arXiv subjects

Langston Nashold

Publications and source records attributed to Langston Nashold.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Vibe Code Bench: Evaluating AI Models on End-to-End Web Application Development

Code generation has emerged as one of AI's highest-impact use cases, yet existing benchmarks measure isolated tasks rather than the complete "zero-to-one" process of building a working application from scratch. We introduce Vibe Code Bench, a benchmark of 100 web application specifications (50 private validation, 50 held-out test) with 964 browser-based workflows comprising 10,131 substeps, evaluated against deployed applications by an autonomous browser agent. Across 16 frontier models, the best achieves 61.8% accuracy on the test split, revealing that reliable end-to-end application development remains a frontier challenge. We identify self-testing during generation as a strong performance predictor (Pearson r=0.72), and show through a completed human alignment study that evaluator selection materially affects outcomes (31.8-93.6% pairwise step-level agreement). Our contributions include (1) a novel benchmark dataset and browser-based evaluation pipeline for end-to-end web application development, (2) a comprehensive evaluation of 16 frontier models with cost, latency, and error analysis, and (3) an evaluator alignment protocol with both cross-model and human annotation results.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

FormalProofBench: Can Models Write Graduate Level Math Proofs That Are Formally Verified?

We present FormalProofBench, a private benchmark designed to evaluate whether AI models can produce formally verified mathematical proofs at the graduate level. Each task pairs a natural-language problem with a Lean~4 formal statement, and a model must output a Lean proof accepted by the Lean 4 checker. FormalProofBench targets advanced undergraduate and graduate mathematics, with problems drawn from qualifying exams and standard textbooks across topics including analysis, algebra, probability, and logic. We evaluate a range of frontier models with an agentic harness, and find that the best-performing foundation model achieves 33.5% accuracy, with performance dropping rapidly after that. In addition to the accuracy numbers, we also provide empirical analysis of tool-use, failure modes, cost and latency, thereby providing a thorough evaluation of the formal-theorem proving abilities of frontier models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Finance Agent Benchmark: Benchmarking LLMs on Real-world Financial Research Tasks

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has emerged as a transformative force in financial analysis and the finance industry, though significant questions remain about the full capabilities of Large Language Model (LLM) agents in this domain. We present the Finance Agent Benchmark, featuring challenging and diverse real-world finance research problems that require LLMs to perform complex analysis using recent SEC filings. We construct the benchmark using a taxonomy of nine financial task categories, developed in consultation with experts from banks, hedge funds, and private equity firms. The dataset includes 537 expert-authored questions covering tasks from information retrieval to complex financial modeling, each validated through a rigorous review process to ensure accuracy and relevance. Moreover, we implement an agentic harness that equips LLMs with tools sufficient to produce accurate responses, including Google Search and EDGAR database access. Overall, the Finance Agent Benchmark provides a comprehensive testbed for measuring the progress of LLM-driven finance agents. Our evaluation reveals significant limitations in current AI capabilities - even the best-performing model (OpenAI o3) achieved only 46.8% accuracy at an average cost of $3.79 per query. This underscores the need for further advancements before reliable deployment in high-stakes finance settings.

cs.CE↗

arXiv2023

USat: A Unified Self-Supervised Encoder for Multi-Sensor Satellite Imagery

Large, self-supervised vision models have led to substantial advancements for automatically interpreting natural images. Recent works have begun tailoring these methods to remote sensing data which has rich structure with multi-sensor, multi-spectral, and temporal information providing massive amounts of self-labeled data that can be used for self-supervised pre-training. In this work, we develop a new encoder architecture called USat that can input multi-spectral data from multiple sensors for self-supervised pre-training. USat is a vision transformer with modified patch projection layers and positional encodings to model spectral bands with varying spatial scales from multiple sensors. We integrate USat into a Masked Autoencoder (MAE) self-supervised pre-training procedure and find that a pre-trained USat outperforms state-of-the-art self-supervised MAE models trained on remote sensing data on multiple remote sensing benchmark datasets (up to 8%) and leads to improvements in low data regimes (up to 7%). Code and pre-trained weights are available at https://github.com/stanfordmlgroup/USat .

cs.CV↗

arXiv2020

Using LSTM and SARIMA Models to Forecast Cluster CPU Usage

As large scale cloud computing centers become more popular than individual servers, predicting future resource demand need has become an important problem. Forecasting resource need allows public cloud providers to proactively allocate or deallocate resources for cloud services. This work seeks to predict one resource, CPU usage, over both a short term and long term time scale. To gain insight into the model characteristics that best support specific tasks, we consider two vastly different architectures: the historically relevant SARIMA model and the more modern neural network, LSTM model. We apply these models to Azure data resampled to 20 minutes per data point with the goal of predicting usage over the next hour for the short-term task and for the next three days for the long-term task. The SARIMA model outperformed the LSTM for the long term prediction task, but performed poorer on the short term task. Furthermore, the LSTM model was more robust, whereas the SARIMA model relied on the data meeting certain assumptions about seasonality.

cs.LG↗