arXiv:2611.16485v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: A hosted score in the Gemma 4 Developer Agent competition is one noisy number, so development needs a local evaluator that is fast, safe for agent-written code, and matching the hosted scorer's prompts. drydock-eval evaluates a small coding agent (Gemma 4 E4B) at about 250 runs per hour on one RTX 5090. Contain runs each job in a fresh container without network and passed 200 scripted escape tests; conform provides eight checks that compare a local stack's requests with the scorer's configuration, down to rendered tokens; compare provides paired statistics that respect repository clusters. AI agents built and attacked the kit; a human owner approved machine use and release. This extended version repeats the short paper and adds the full record of the experiments made with and around the kit: 9,660 rows of agent runs, 2,494 grading controls and 72 serving measurements, all released. On four L4 GPUs the 31B model decodes 38.1 tokens per second in one stream and E4B 105.8. Six configurations of a 31B agent solved between 37 and 44 of 70 development tasks, and no pairwise difference was detected. A pre-registered five-arm experiment (231 tasks, 4,620 jobs) measured four prompt divergences: no E4B solve-rate change was detected (largest estimate -2.1 points, 95% interval -4.4 to +0.4). Three changes of the E4B agent led their screens by +1.0 to +6.2 points; each was then tested once on new tasks under a frozen pass rule, and none was confirmed (gains -0.35, -0.39 and +4.10 points). The unchanged baseline, run again on the same 128 tasks, moved by 1.17 points, and 65% of these tasks were solved in none of eight runs. Prompts and agent bundles are withheld; every run-level result is public.
Abstract: A hosted score in the Gemma 4 Developer Agent competition is one noisy number, so development needs a local evaluator that is fast, safe for agent-written code, and matching the hosted scorer's prompts. drydock-eval evaluates a small coding agent (Gemma 4 E4B) at about 250 runs per hour on one RTX 5090. Contain runs each job in a fresh container without network and passed 200 scripted escape tests; conform provides eight checks that compare a local stack's requests with the scorer's configuration, down to rendered tokens; compare provides paired statistics that respect repository clusters. AI agents built and attacked the kit; a human owner approved machine use and release. This extended version repeats the short paper and adds the full record of the experiments made with and around the kit: 9,660 rows of agent runs, 2,494 grading controls and 72 serving measurements, all released. On four L4 GPUs the 31B model decodes 38.1 tokens per second in one stream and E4B 105.8. Six configurations of a 31B agent solved between 37 and 44 of 70 development tasks, and no pairwise difference was detected. A pre-registered five-arm experiment (231 tasks, 4,620 jobs) measured four prompt divergences: no E4B solve-rate change was detected (largest estimate -2.1 points, 95% interval -4.4 to +0.4). Three changes of the E4B agent led their screens by +1.0 to +6.2 points; each was then tested once on new tasks under a frozen pass rule, and none was confirmed (gains -0.35, -0.39 and +4.10 points). The unchanged baseline, run again on the same 128 tasks, moved by 1.17 points, and 65% of these tasks were solved in none of eight runs. Prompts and agent bundles are withheld; every run-level result is public.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org