LogDx-CI C
AI benchmark · Software Engineering
- Publisher
- Paper Arxiv
- Domains
- Software Engineering
- Tier
- C why
- Snapshot
What is LogDx-CI?
CI failure logs are large (median 5k lines, max 200k in this corpus) and noisy. Coding agents that try to debug them depend on an upstream tool to reduce the log to a manageable context, but the field has had no public empirical comparison of which reductions preserve enough evidence for downstream LLM diagnosis. We introduce LogDx-CI, a benchmark that compares 11 context-reduction tools (raw, tail, grep, three RTK modes, two real LLM map-reduce summarizers, three hybrid routers) on 35 real GitHub Actions failure cases, scored by 3 LLM debugger families (Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, OpenAI gpt-5-mini) plus a Sonnet 4.6 tool-using agent. We report three load-bearing findings. (1)~Hybrid grep+tail routers dominate the cost-quality Pareto frontier; the top two methods score 0.670 / 0.666 at $\sim$ \$0.03 per case, same-ballpark quality as standalone grep at $4.5\times$ fewer tokens. (2)~In the agent-loop regime, the quality range across reduction tools collapses $7\times$ (single-shot spread 0.42 $\to$ agent-loop spread 0.059); the agent rescues weak contexts via follow-up tool calls. However, cost differences persist: weak contexts force the agent to issue 2--4$\times$ more tool calls to recover. (3)~A cross-family LLM-summary pair (gpt-5-mini summarizer feeding a Claude Haiku debugger) beats the same-family pair by $+0.071$ averaged across four diagnoser variants, falsifying the self-call-bias hypothesis on this task. The gpt-5-mini summarizer is also the agent-loop \#1 method (score 0.749) at $0.37$ tool-calls per case and $10\times$ lower reducer cost than the Haiku summarizer (\$0.18 vs \$1.75 per case). All data, code, per-case bundles, and reproducibility infrastructure are public.
Tier C
Niche: a handful of models scored, or built by an RL vendor.
How much stands behind a tier: usage, who backs it, a confirmed line from its own site or paper, and a clear read on X. High with three of the four, medium with two, low otherwise.
- 11 models scored
- in curated RL directories (1 pt)
How we got to tier C
- Adoption: 11 models scored. Tier C.
- Not yet read on X.
- In curated RL directories: 1 point, a floor of none.
- Not yet confirmed by a line from its own site or paper.
A clear view on X moves a tier one step up or down; most entries don't move. How tiers work.
Not on the map yet: no line from its own site or paper places it in a domain.
Next: browse all benchmarks. Entry from the RL Research daily scrape of public sources, 2026-10-11 snapshot.