Sep 2026· Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Abstract
We introduce MetroLLM-Bench, a 955-case benchmark for testing language models as the policy layer of a transit kiosk. It covers six real metro systems, ranging from 37 to 414 stations, and eleven categories that include routing, fare calculation, disruptions, accessibility, and adversarial input. In each case, the model must call structured tools and submit a machine-renderable terminal state containing an outcome, a per-ticket fare quote when applicable, and a kiosk action. Fourteen deterministic scoring components form Tier 1; eight semantic-quality components form Tier 2, six of which use a language-model judge. We report Tier 1 and the combined score of both tiers. A stratified 75/25 split reserves 717 cases for training-data generation and 238 for held-out evaluation. We evaluate twenty-six models from six vendors, of which twenty-three are ranked. On the held-out partition, a 4B Qwen 3.5 student trained through parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) exceeds both GPT-5.6 tiers on Tier 1 (91.3 against 90.6 and 90.0) and matches GPT-5.4 full at maximum reasoning effort (91.4), with a 2.6 GB Q4_K_M footprint. Larger 9B and 27B students provide no further Tier 1 improvement over the 4B student at this training scale. Across the four Qwen sizes, the PEFT gain over the corresponding base model decreases from +7.03 points at 2B (three training seeds) to −0.91 at 27B; every seed shows the same direction at every size. A deterministic rule-based baseline reaches 84.6 on Tier 1, with the remaining language-model advantage concentrated in policy adaptation, compound scenarios, accessibility, and temporal reasoning. Muse Glimmer 30B leads the composite ranking, and serving configuration alone moves the Qwen 3.5-to-3.8 comparison by 2.7 Tier 1 points. The benchmark, harness, reproduction guide, and fine-tuned students are released at https://github.com/continker/metrollm-bench.
The results are packaged in the Greenfield Startup Model (GSM), which explains the priority of startups to release the product as quickly as possible, and the need to shorten time-to-market, by speeding up the development through low-precision engineering activities.
Carmine Giardino, Nicolò Paternoster, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· IEEE Transactions on Softwar...· 178 citations· ⚡14
Software startup companies develop innovative, software-intensive products within limited timeframes and with few resources, searching for sustainable and scalable business models.
M. Unterkalmsteiner, P. Abrahamsson, Xiaofeng Wang et al.· e-Informatica Software Engin...· 157 citations· ⚡17
This study conducts a case survey study based on the secondary data of the major pivots happened in 49 software startups, and demonstrates that customer need pivot is the most common among all pivot types.
Sohaib Shahid Bajwa, Xiaofeng Wang, Anh Nguyen-Duc et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 127 citations· ⚡15
The comparison of adopter and non-adopter sample reveals three potential adoption inhibitor, security, data privacy, and portability, which underlines the importance of the technical and security perspectives for research investigating the adoption of technology.
Nattakarn Phaphoom, Xiaofeng Wang, S. Samuel et al.· Journal of Systems and Softw...· 111 citations· ⚡8
The ongoing work building a Raspberry Pi cluster consisting of 300 nodes is presented, with potential use cases being an inexpensive and green test bed for cloud computing research and a robust and mobile data center for operating in adverse environments.
P. Abrahamsson, S. Helmer, Nattakarn Phaphoom et al.· IEEE International Conferenc...· 110 citations· ⚡7
The results indicate that software developers are a slightly happy population, but the need for limiting the unhappiness of developers remains, and 219 factors representing causes of unhappiness while developing software are identified.
D. Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang et al.· International Conference on...· 84 citations· ⚡6
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 14, 2026
The “HardFlow” algorithm could help generative AI models produce high-quality outputs that obey strict requirements when “pretty close” doesn’t cut it.
AI may appear weightless, but every model depends on physical infrastructure. To understand responsible AI, we need to look beyond algorithms and consider the entire lifecycle of the hardware behind them. The post Responsible AI Must Consider Its Afterlife appeared first on GPT-Lab.