# CAKE: Cloud Architecture Knowledge Evaluation of Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05755 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.05755/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 18 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [CRUXEval: A Benchmark for Code Reasoning, Understanding and Execution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.03065/) (2024)
- [Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12624/) (2024)
- [DesignQA: A Multimodal Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models' Understanding of Engineering Documentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07917/) (2024)
- [How Reliable is Multilingual LLM-as-a-Judge?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.12201/) (2025)
- [Generative AI for Software Architecture. Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13310/) (2025)
- [Software Architecture Meets LLMs: A Systematic Literature Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.16697/) (2025)
- [ArchCode: Incorporating Software Requirements in Code Generation with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00994/) (2024)
- [QuArch: A Question-Answering Dataset for AI Agents in Computer Architecture](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.01892/) (2025)
- [Automated Benchmark Generation from Domain Guidelines Informed by Bloom's Taxonomy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.20253/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In today's software architecture, large language models (LLMs) serve as software architecture co-pilots. However, no benchmark currently exists to evaluate large language models' actual understanding of cloud-native software architecture. For this reason we present a benchmark called CAKE, which consists of 188 expert-validated questions covering four cognitive levels of Bloom's revised taxonomy -- recall, analyze, design, and implement -- and five cloud-native topics. Evaluation is conducted on 22 model configurations (0.5B--70B parameters) across four LLM families, using three-run majority voting for multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and LLM-as-a-judge scoring for free-responses (FR). Based on this evaluation, four notable findings were identified. First, MCQ accuracy plateaus above 3B parameters, with the best model reaching 99.2%. Second, free-response scores scale steadily across all cognitive levels. Third, the two formats capture different facets of knowledge, as the MCQ accuracy approaches a ceiling while free-responses continue to differentiate models. Finally, reasoning augmentation (+think) improves free-response quality, while tool augmentation (+tool) degrades performance for small models. These results suggest that the evaluation format fundamentally shapes how we measure architectural knowledge in LLMs.