LLM agents have made rapid progress on software engineering and ML research tasks, but these advances often assume access to a working runnable environment. For research artifacts released alongside published papers, setting up such an environment from a fresh machine remains a major bottleneck. Existing environment setup benchmarks do not cover the full scope of research-artifact deployment, which involves multi-language toolchains, system-level dependencies beyond containers (e.g., GPU/CUDA and kernel configurations), and legacy artifact compatibility. We introduce DeployBench, a multi-domain benchmark of 51 research-artifact deployment tasks spanning AI/ML, computer systems, and scientific computing, covering all these dimensions. Each task is verified by a hidden pipeline that executes the paper’s designated experiment and checks its outputs. Evaluating five state-of-the-art LLMs with OpenHands yields pass-rates from 7.8%-51.0%. Failures are dominated by a completion-judgment problem: 102 of 181 are agent-terminated self-stops, where the agent’s pre-finish checks validate a different or weaker target than the paper-specific task requires. DeployBench highlights the gap between current agents and autonomous deployment, and offers a realistic testbed for scientific research agents.

In this paper, we observe that current models are susceptible to reward hacking, leading to a substantial overestimation of a model’s reasoning ability. This is evidenced by a high incidence of “false positives”—solutions that reach the correct answer through an unsound process.Through a systematic analysis with human verification, we establish a taxonomy of these failure modes, identifying patterns like Miracle Steps—abrupt jumps to a correct output without a valid preceding derivation. Probing experiments suggest that these Miracle Steps are linked to answer-recall shortcuts, including memorization from pretraining, where the model accesses the correct answer independently of its reasoning chain.To mitigate this systemic issue, we introduce the Rubric Reward Model (RRM), a process-oriented reward function that evaluates the entire reasoning trajectory against problem-specific rubrics.The RRM explicitly penalizes logical flaws and encourages rigorous deduction.When integrated into an RL pipeline, RRM-based training consistently outperforms outcome-only supervision across four math benchmarks.Notably, it boosts Verified Pass@1024 on AIME2024 from 26.7% to 62.6% and reduces the incidence of Miracle Steps by 71%.Our work demonstrates that rewarding the solution process is crucial for building accurate and reliable models.