84 / 90

Day 84: 綜合與評估複習 —— 科學化 Agent 評測

鞏固本單元:憑記憶提取協議與指標概念、重算可核驗數字、組裝四語言評測報告。

智能體工程與科學評測 480 分鐘有效研習(8 小時)
01 120 分鐘

綜合複習:證據種類、預註冊與基準紀律

Agent 輔助工程檢查

前置要求

Day 83 的解讀備忘。

學習目標

在翻看筆記之前,憑記憶提取本單元核心區分——確定性治具證據與受阻上線證據、預註冊與事後編故事、結果指標與工具行為指標。

操作指引

1. 檢索練習:憑記憶寫出四個指標族、六個契約任務 ID,以及 evidence_kind 為 deterministic 與 live 的區別。
2. 對照 live_eval_contract.json 自查回憶結果,把每一處遺漏記入追趕計畫。
3. 用一段話概括 blocked-awaiting-authorization 狀態:存在什麼(確定性執行、契約、校驗器),不存在什麼(任何上線測量值)。
4. 解釋為什麼基準紀律——先凍結任務集、基準與假設——是本單元的核心習慣。

自主實作與記錄

撰寫 recall_log.md:憑記憶列出四個指標族、全部六個任務 ID、確定性對上線的證據規則,然後對照契約自評。

獨立掌握標準

憑記憶準確重現單元核心概念,並誠實記錄缺口。

權威來源資源與權利證明

linking Open Access / CC BY 4.0

AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents

作者 / 機構: Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, et al. | 原始出處連結 ↗

對應章節 / 時間戳: Section 4.1 Evaluation Setup and Section 4.3 Analysis

驗證版本與日期: ICLR 2024 / arXiv:2308.03688v2 (Verified: 2026-10-30)

入選理由:

First systematic multi-environment benchmark measuring LLM-as-agent ability across eight interactive settings, establishing fixed task suites, environment-specific scoring, and comparable evaluation conventions.

來源前置條件:

LLM prompting, tool-use environments, and multi-step task decomposition.

安全回退方案(離線彈性):

The curriculum fixes its own six-task evaluation suite with deterministic-v1 fixture analogs, so all protocol-design practice runs offline without reproducing AgentBench environments.

對比候選資源與選型分析 (2)

Real computer-control benchmark for open-ended desktop tasks; AgentBench covers a wider environment spectrum for foundational evaluation design.

Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Web ↗ compared_alternative [Open Access]

Generalist web-agent benchmark with 2,350 tasks; AgentBench provides broader multi-domain coverage for studying evaluation protocol design.

linking Open Access / CC BY 4.0

SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?

作者 / 機構: Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, Karthik R. Narasimhan | 原始出處連結 ↗

對應章節 / 時間戳: N/A

驗證版本與日期: ICLR 2024 / arXiv:2310.06770v3 (Verified: 2026-10-30)

入選理由:

Defines the standard pattern this block teaches: a bounded issue statement paired with executable fail-to-pass tests as verifiable acceptance criteria for agent-produced changes.

來源前置條件:

Unit testing, issue descriptions, and repository evaluation vocabulary.

安全回退方案(離線彈性):

The acceptance-criteria pattern is exercised locally through the Ticket 22 fixture scorer and the Ticket 24 regression exercise without external datasets.

對比候選資源與選型分析 (2)
HumanEval: Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code ↗ compared_alternative [arXiv non-exclusive license / Open Access]

Function-level synthesis benchmark; SWE-bench models the repository-scoped issue-to-diff workflow that this delivery block rehearses.

Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolving ↗ compared_alternative [Open Access / CC BY 4.0]

Extends issue resolution to multiple programming languages; the original Python-centric SWE-bench provides a cleaner pedagogical anchor.

02 120 分鐘

指標重算操練:從原始軌跡到可核驗數字

獨立掌握檢查(無 AI 輔助)

前置要求

Day 84 Activity 1 的回憶日誌。

學習目標

從原始記錄產物——治具報告、action/observation 軌跡與計數器——重算全部契約指標,證明每個數字都可被獨立核驗。

操作指引

1. 重跑確定性基準命令,對生成的 report.txt 做雜湊,與契約中的 expected_report_sha256 比對。
2. 逐條走查 action/observation 軌跡:核驗每個 action 名都在 allowed_tools 中、每個 arguments 酬載都是 JSON 物件。
3. 用已記錄的步數與重試計數器對照宣告上限,重算預算合規性。
4. 核驗失敗處理:每個失敗的 observation 都帶結構化錯誤值,termination_reason 誠實。
5. 記錄重算筆記:每個指標的輸入產物、所做檢查、結果。

自主實作與記錄

產出 recomputation_notes.md,把四個指標逐一映射到來源產物、所做檢查與重算值。

獨立掌握標準

從原始產物重算全部四個指標,並給出每個數字的證據鏈。

權威來源資源與權利證明

linking Open Access / CC BY 4.0

tau-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains

作者 / 機構: Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, Karthik Narasimhan | 原始出處連結 ↗

對應章節 / 時間戳: Section 3 τ-bench: A benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction (pass^k definition); Section 4.2 Key Characteristics; Section 5 Experiments (pass^k results)

驗證版本與日期: ICLR 2025 / arXiv:2406.12045v2 (Verified: 2026-10-30)

入選理由:

Introduces pass^k consistency metrics and database-state outcome checks for tool-agent-user interaction, separating reliable task completion from single lucky runs.

來源前置條件:

Tool-calling APIs, conversational agents, and policy-following evaluation.

安全回退方案(離線彈性):

Consistency metrics and state-based outcome checking are re-implemented on the curriculum deterministic fixture for offline practice.

對比候選資源與選型分析 (2)

Stateful tool-use evaluation with milestone events; tau-bench additionally models a simulated user and reports pass^k reliability.

Berkeley Function-Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) ↗ compared_alternative [Apache 2.0 (Gorilla project)]

Live leaderboard for function-call correctness across languages and parallel calls; tau-bench adds policy adherence and multi-trial consistency.

linking arXiv non-exclusive license / Open Access

WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents

作者 / 機構: Shuyan Zhou, Frank F. Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, Graham Neubig | 原始出處連結 ↗

對應章節 / 時間戳: Section 3.2 Evaluation Annotation (functional correctness checks)

驗證版本與日期: ICLR 2024 / arXiv:2307.13854v4 (Verified: 2026-10-30)

入選理由:

Defines reproducible web tasks scored by functional outcome rather than reference-string matching, grounding observable action/observation evidence for agent evaluation.

來源前置條件:

Web navigation, browser action spaces, and functional correctness checking.

安全回退方案(離線彈性):

The curriculum records action/observation traces on its own deterministic fixture, reproducing outcome-check discipline without hosting web environments.

對比候選資源與選型分析 (2)

Enterprise-workflow web benchmark; WebArena offers broader self-hosted site diversity for foundational protocol study.

Extends WebArena to visual grounding; WebArena remains the base reference for action-space and functional scoring design.

03 120 分鐘

四語言科學評測報告組裝

Agent 輔助工程檢查

前置要求

Day 84 Activity 2 的重算筆記。

學習目標

組裝本單元四語言評測報告:協議、基準重算、混雜變數、失敗分類、成本核算與宣告的不主張事項。

操作指引

1. 彙總產物:eval_protocol.md、baseline_ledger.json、confounder_register.md、failure_taxonomy.json、cost_ledger.csv、memo.md。
2. 填寫四語言報告模板(英語、日語、簡體中文、繁體中文),各版數字與主張完全一致。
3. 校驗各版術語一致:預註冊、基準、混雜、失敗歸因、終止誠實性、證據種類的譯法前後一致。
4. 確認報告在四種語言中同樣寫明 blocked-awaiting-authorization 與 null 上線值;任何版本都不得悄悄誇大證據。

自主實作與記錄

發布四語言科學評測報告;核驗每個版本載有相同指標、相同 null 上線值與相同不主張事項。

獨立掌握標準

交付指標一致性已核驗的四語言報告,無任何版本誇大證據。

權威來源資源與權利證明

linking MIT

OpenAI Evals: Framework for Evaluating LLMs and Contamination Checks

作者 / 機構: OpenAI Research | 原始出處連結 ↗

對應章節 / 時間戳: README sections 'Running evals' and 'Writing evals'

驗證版本與日期: OpenAI Evals Repository (Verified: 2026-10-30)

入選理由:

Standardized evaluation repository specifying rigorous separation of eval prompts, canary GUID strings, and contamination test protocols.

來源前置條件:

Python, evaluation harnesses (MMLU, GSM8K), JSONL datasets.

安全回退方案(離線彈性):

Canary GUID matching, token set intersection, and leak detection scripts are implemented in the curriculum.

對比候選資源與選型分析 (2)
EleutherAI LM Evaluation Harness ↗ compared_alternative [MIT]

Widely adopted evaluation harness; OpenAI Evals provides explicit canary guidance and contamination check specifications.

Hugging Face Lighteval ↗ compared_alternative [MIT]

Modern lightweight eval framework; OpenAI Evals illustrates standard test-set integrity guarantees.

linking Open Access / CC BY 4.0

AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents

作者 / 機構: Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, et al. | 原始出處連結 ↗

對應章節 / 時間戳: Section 4.1 Evaluation Setup and Section 4.3 Analysis

驗證版本與日期: ICLR 2024 / arXiv:2308.03688v2 (Verified: 2026-10-30)

入選理由:

First systematic multi-environment benchmark measuring LLM-as-agent ability across eight interactive settings, establishing fixed task suites, environment-specific scoring, and comparable evaluation conventions.

來源前置條件:

LLM prompting, tool-use environments, and multi-step task decomposition.

安全回退方案(離線彈性):

The curriculum fixes its own six-task evaluation suite with deterministic-v1 fixture analogs, so all protocol-design practice runs offline without reproducing AgentBench environments.

對比候選資源與選型分析 (2)

Real computer-control benchmark for open-ended desktop tasks; AgentBench covers a wider environment spectrum for foundational evaluation design.

Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Web ↗ compared_alternative [Open Access]

Generalist web-agent benchmark with 2,350 tasks; AgentBench provides broader multi-domain coverage for studying evaluation protocol design.

04 120 分鐘

綜合與評估複習:Agent 評測掌握檢查與追趕計畫

獨立掌握檢查(無 AI 輔助)

前置要求

Day 84 Activities 1-3。

學習目標

完成單元鞏固:通過掌握檢查,把每個已記錄缺口轉為間隔複習項,並認證學習證據誠實完整。

操作指引

1. 完成獨立掌握檢查,範圍:預註冊紀律、四個指標族、證據種類、混雜控制、失敗歸因、null 上線值。
2. 對每個失分點建立間隔複習條目:概念名、需重學的產物、計畫複習日。
3. 核驗掌握檢查結果、自我勾選完成與觀察到的測試證據分別記錄——自報永遠不能頂替觀察結果。
4. 認證證據包:協議、台帳、備忘、報告均引用實際產物,並誠實承擔 blocked-awaiting-authorization 狀態。

自主實作與記錄

提交 mastery_check_record.json:檢查結果、逐缺口的間隔複習清單,以及「報告中的每個數字都可追溯至重算產物」的認證。

獨立掌握標準

以誠實的掌握記錄收尾:缺口已記錄、複習已排期、證據已認證。

權威來源資源與權利證明

linking Open Access / CC BY 4.0

SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?

作者 / 機構: Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, Karthik R. Narasimhan | 原始出處連結 ↗

對應章節 / 時間戳: N/A

驗證版本與日期: ICLR 2024 / arXiv:2310.06770v3 (Verified: 2026-10-30)

入選理由:

Defines the standard pattern this block teaches: a bounded issue statement paired with executable fail-to-pass tests as verifiable acceptance criteria for agent-produced changes.

來源前置條件:

Unit testing, issue descriptions, and repository evaluation vocabulary.

安全回退方案(離線彈性):

The acceptance-criteria pattern is exercised locally through the Ticket 22 fixture scorer and the Ticket 24 regression exercise without external datasets.

對比候選資源與選型分析 (2)
HumanEval: Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code ↗ compared_alternative [arXiv non-exclusive license / Open Access]

Function-level synthesis benchmark; SWE-bench models the repository-scoped issue-to-diff workflow that this delivery block rehearses.

Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolving ↗ compared_alternative [Open Access / CC BY 4.0]

Extends issue resolution to multiple programming languages; the original Python-centric SWE-bench provides a cleaner pedagogical anchor.

linking Open Access / CC BY 4.0

tau-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains

作者 / 機構: Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, Karthik Narasimhan | 原始出處連結 ↗

對應章節 / 時間戳: Section 3 τ-bench: A benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction (pass^k definition); Section 4.2 Key Characteristics; Section 5 Experiments (pass^k results)

驗證版本與日期: ICLR 2025 / arXiv:2406.12045v2 (Verified: 2026-10-30)

入選理由:

Introduces pass^k consistency metrics and database-state outcome checks for tool-agent-user interaction, separating reliable task completion from single lucky runs.

來源前置條件:

Tool-calling APIs, conversational agents, and policy-following evaluation.

安全回退方案(離線彈性):

Consistency metrics and state-based outcome checking are re-implemented on the curriculum deterministic fixture for offline practice.

對比候選資源與選型分析 (2)

Stateful tool-use evaluation with milestone events; tau-bench additionally models a simulated user and reports pass^k reliability.

Berkeley Function-Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) ↗ compared_alternative [Apache 2.0 (Gorilla project)]

Live leaderboard for function-call correctness across languages and parallel calls; tau-bench adds policy adherence and multi-trial consistency.