We introduce MMSciCode, a comprehensive expert-level, multilingual multi-discipline benchmark for evaluating foundation models in scientific code generation. It includes 624 expert-annotated research coding problems spanning six core scientific disciplines. Compared to prior benchmarks, MMSciCode features three key advancements. First, it challenges models to integrate domain-specific knowledge with algorithmic reasoning to implement core functions from research papers, moving beyond the isolated, general-purpose coding tasks typically assessed in current benchmarks. Second, each problem is meticulously annotated by domain experts through a rigorous paper-grounded process, with strict quality controls implemented to ensure dataset integrity and authenticity. Finally, each problem is equipped with comprehensive unit test suites and containerized environments, enabling reproducible and diagnostic evaluation of both functional correctness and domain validity. We conduct an extensive evaluation of 28 state-of-the-art foundation models and 2 agentic coding tools on MMSciCode. Our results reveal that even the best non-agentic model achieves only around 15% accuracy, while the top agentic coding tool reaches 32.2%, both still far below human expert performance of 68.8%. Through comprehensive error analyses and case studies, we identify substantial performance gaps between models and human experts, providing actionable insights for advancing expert-level scientific code generation.

We introduce TableVista, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating foundation models in multimodal table reasoning under visual and structural complexity. TableVista consists of 3,000 high-quality table reasoning problems, where each instance is expanded into 10 distinct visual variants through our multi-style rendering and transformation pipeline. This process encompasses diverse scenario styles, robustness perturbations, and vision-only configurations, culminating in 30,000 multimodal samples for a multi-dimensional evaluation. We conduct an extensive evaluation of 29 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary foundation models on TableVista. Through comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis, we find that while evaluated models remain largely stable across diverse rendering styles, they exhibit pronounced performance degradation on complex structural layouts and vision-only settings, revealing that current models struggle to maintain reasoning consistency when structural complexity combines with visually integrated presentations. These findings highlight critical gaps in current multimodal capabilities, providing insights for advancing more robust and reliable table understanding models.

In this work, we present the first study to explore inference-time scaling on table reasoning tasks. We develop and evaluate two post-training strategies to enable inference-time scaling: distillation from frontier model reasoning traces and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). For distillation, we introduce a large-scale dataset of reasoning traces generated by DeepSeek-R1, which we use to fine-tune LLMs into the Table-R1-SFT model. For RLVR, we propose task-specific verifiable reward functions and apply the GRPO algorithm to obtain the Table-R1-Zero model. We evaluate our Table-R1-series models across diverse table reasoning tasks, including short-form QA, fact verification, and free-form QA. Notably, the Table-R1-Zero model matches or exceeds the performance of GPT-4.1 and DeepSeek-R1, while using only a 7B-parameter LLM. It also demonstrates strong generalization to out-of-domain datasets. Extensive ablation and qualitative analyses reveal the benefits of instruction tuning, model architecture choices, and cross-task generalization, as well as emergence of essential table reasoning skills during RL training.

We introduce TestCase-Eval, a new benchmark for systematic evaluation of LLMs in test-case generation. TestCase-Eval includes 500 algorithm problems and 100,000 human-crafted solutions from the Codeforces platform. It focuses on two pivotal tasks: (1) Fault Coverage, which measures how well LLM-generated test sets probe diverse input scenarios and cover a wide range of potential failure modes. (2) Fault Exposure, which evaluates whether LLMs can craft a tailored test input that reveals a specific incorrect code implementation. We provide a comprehensive assessment of 19 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs on TestCase-Eval, offering insights into their strengths and limitations in generating effective test cases for algorithm problems.