Carnegie Mellon’s Infini-AI Lab posted twin arXiv benchmarks on 2026-11-04. CompressionBench asks coding agents to deliver verified compressed weights plus inference code under a storage cap (29/36 submissions pass; best-per-task designs average ~3.4% PPL above BF16). ServerBench scores complete LLM serving design by latency-qualified token value per GPU dollar; across 11 models × 3 deployments Claude Sonnet 5.5 reaches 2.97 dollars-per-dollar on Gemma E4B (~4.87× the vLLM reference) and 22/33 runs verify.

Key Takeaways

  • ✓Official: arXiv:2611.06858 CompressionBench + arXiv:2611.06841 ServerBench (CMU Infini-AI Lab)
  • ✓CompressionBench: 6 agents × 6 settings; 29/36 submissions pass independent verification; best designs ~3.4% PPL above BF16
  • ✓ServerBench: objective dollars-per-dollar = latency-qualified token value / GPU cost; stateful coding-session replay
  • ✓Paper table: Claude Sonnet 5.5 hits 2.97 on Gemma E4B (~4.87× vLLM reference); 22/33 runs verify
  • ✓Code: github.com/Infini-AI-Lab/Compression-Bench and Server-Bench
🧭

Not enough VRAM? Compare cloud API and self-hosting costs

Compare 40 dev plans & simulate token costs vs $20/mo subscriptions

🔬

In-Depth Technical Analysis

Core Background & Industry Pain Points

Coding agents already patch repos and run experiments, yet reproducible tests of whether they can compress models for themselves or design their own serving stacks remain scarce. On 2026-11-04 CMU’s Infini-AI Lab posted CompressionBench and ServerBench on arXiv: the first asks agents to deliver executable compressed models under storage and time limits; the second asks them to design complete serving systems that pass latency and correctness checks.

Architecture Highlights & Internals

CompressionBench casts compression as a terminal task: given source weights, package/resident storage caps, a GPU and a wall-clock budget, agents choose quantization/pruning/distillation and implement inference code. Search uses full-model perplexity feedback; a separate container then verifies likelihood, generation accuracy (retain ≥80% of BF16), and storage. ServerBench starts from a minimal Transformers server and replays real coding sessions via AgentX. The objective is dollars-per-dollar: latency-qualified token value divided by GPU dollars. Submissions include the server and session concurrency.

Authoritative Benchmarks & Measured Scores

All figures below are from the papers’ tables (not AICoder re-runs). CompressionBench: six agents (Sonnet 5.5, Opus 5.5, GLM 5.3, Kimi K3.1, MiniMax M3.1, DeepSeek V4.1) × six model/limit settings; 29/36 submissions pass; selecting the lowest-PPL design per task yields ~3.4% average PPL above BF16 and ~77.33% mean downstream accuracy vs ~79.56% for remasured BF16. ServerBench: 11 models × three deployments; 22/33 runs verify and 13 beat the strongest baseline; Claude Sonnet 5.5 reaches 2.97 dollars-per-dollar on Gemma E4B (1×L40), about 4.87× the vLLM reference; Opus 5.5 reaches 4.40 on Qwen3.5 9B.

Developer Hands-on Guide

Papers and code: arxiv.org/abs/2611.06858, arxiv.org/abs/2611.06841, github.com/Infini-AI-Lab/Compression-Bench and Server-Bench; blogs at infini-ai-lab.github.io. Use them to compare agents’ experimental judgment on compression and serving, not just static QA accuracy. Caveat: scores depend on the papers’ hardware, budgets and workload replays and do not transfer blindly; failures often stem from generation regressions or unverified execution paths.

Action HubReady to adopt this in production?

Benchmark side-by-side against alternatives, or calculate monthly token cost vs subscription break-even.

Up NextKaggle and IBM Research launch the ScarfBench Java migration leaderboard: Gemini 4 Argon with Antigravity leads at 75.2%, and about 72% of failures happen at runtime
Read Now→