Every Eval Ever: A Unifying Schema and Community Repository for AI Evaluation Results

AI evaluations are widely used for testing and understanding progress. However, the diverse evaluators bring with them inconsistencies that challenge analysis and comparison. First, results are saved in incompatible formats, scattered across leaderboards, papers, blog posts, evaluation harness logs, and custom repositories. Second, results are created by different evaluation frameworks, which produce divergent scores for nominally identical evaluations and record metadata inconsistently, hindering comparison, cross-community evaluation science, cost reduction, and reuse. We introduce Every Eval Ever, the first shared schema and community-crowdsourced repository for AI evaluation results. The schema standardizes how evaluations are represented in a unified, single JSON document. It is source-agnostic by design, ingesting results from evaluation harnesses and papers alike, and optionally stores per-instance outputs for fine-grained analysis. We contribute: (i) a community-governed metadata schema with a companion instance-level schema, the first standardization effort of its kind; (ii) automatic converters from popular formats, evaluation harnesses, and leaderboards to the unified schema; and (iii) a crowdsourced community database hosted on Hugging Face, currently spanning to date 22,235 models, 2,273 unique benchmarks, and 31 evaluation formats.

Evaluation Cards: An Interpretive Layer for AI Evaluation Reporting

AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present \EvalCards{}, an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies \EvalCards{} across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.

Welfare, Improvability, and Variance: A Principal-Agent Approach to Optimal Benchmark Item Aggregation

AI benchmarks have well-documented limitations, with prior work examining contamination, saturation, and construct underspecification. Aggregation has received far less attention: benchmarks are typically summarized by uniformly averaging item-level scores, implicitly treating every test item as equally valuable. We model benchmarking as a multitask principal-agent game and show that the welfare loss from a benchmark is determined jointly by three item-level primitives: alignment with normative welfare priorities, marginal improvability, and performance variance. We translate the theory into an audit framework that ranks items along each of these three axes, and apply it to OLMES items using WORKBank for welfare, the EvoLM 4B suite for improvability, and the PolyPythias 410M panel for variance. The framework surfaces items that are Pareto-inferior within OLMES subject to a pro-worker welfare operationalization. All code is available at https://github.com/stair-lab/principal-agent-benchmarks.

AI Cartography: Mapping the Latent Landscape of AI Benchmark Ecosystems

While aggregate leaderboard scores drive AI development, they contain substantial measurement noise whose sources and magnitudes remain unquantified, making it unclear when rankings reflect genuine capability differences versus evaluation artifacts. We introduce a framework for measuring the latent landscape in AI benchmark ecosystems. Applying Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Generalizability Theory to 4,000+ models from the Open LLM Leaderboard, we decompose sources of ranking variance and establish: (1) structures assumed in current reporting practice underestimate the strength of relationships between benchmarks; (2) evidence of local dependence among leaderboard items, undermining uses of benchmarks as measurement instruments under current scoring systems; (3) contributor metadata explains more rank-relevant variance ($\approx9\%$) than architecture or deployment categories in this context; (4) a manifest-score "scaling law" slope has low reliability ($R_β=0.53$); by contrast, the latent general-factor size slope is highly stable across ecosystem controls ($R_g=0.97$). We are able to provide unique insights into benchmark dynamics, such as which benchmarks are a function of LLM size and which can be oppositely impacted by post-training practices. We provide actionable diagnostics to determine how benchmark rankings can be trusted and how benchmark design can be improved.

When AI Benchmarks Plateau: A Systematic Study of Benchmark Saturation

Artificial Intelligence (AI) benchmarks play a central role in measuring progress in model development and guiding deployment decisions. However, many benchmarks quickly become saturated, meaning that they can no longer differentiate between the best-performing models, diminishing their long-term value. In this study, we analyze benchmark saturation across 60 Large Language Model (LLM) benchmarks selected from technical reports by major model developers. To identify factors driving saturation, we characterize benchmarks along 14 properties spanning task design, data construction, and evaluation format. We test five hypotheses examining how each property contributes to saturation rates. Our analysis reveals that nearly half of the benchmarks exhibit saturation, with rates increasing as benchmarks age. Notably, hiding test data (i.e., public vs. private) shows no protective effect, while expert-curated benchmarks resist saturation better than crowdsourced ones. Our findings highlight which design choices extend benchmark longevity and inform strategies for more durable evaluation.

Who Evaluates AI's Social Impacts? Mapping Coverage and Gaps in First and Third Party Evaluations

Foundation models are increasingly central to high-stakes AI systems, and governance frameworks now depend on evaluations to assess their risks and capabilities. Although general capability evaluations are widespread, social impact assessments covering bias, fairness, privacy, environmental costs, and labor practices remain uneven across the AI ecosystem. To characterize this landscape, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of both first-party and third-party social impact evaluation reporting across a wide range of model developers. Our study examines 186 first-party release reports and 183 post-release evaluation sources, and complements this quantitative analysis with interviews of model developers. We find a clear division of evaluation labor: first-party reporting is sparse, often superficial, and has declined over time in key areas such as environmental impact and bias, while third-party evaluators including academic researchers, nonprofits, and independent organizations provide broader and more rigorous coverage of bias, harmful content, and performance disparities. However, this complementarity has limits. Only model developers can authoritatively report on data provenance, content moderation labor, financial costs, and training infrastructure, yet interviews reveal that these disclosures are often deprioritized unless tied to product adoption or regulatory compliance. Our findings indicate that current evaluation practices leave major gaps in assessing AI's societal impacts, highlighting the urgent need for policies that promote developer transparency, strengthen independent evaluation ecosystems, and create shared infrastructure to aggregate and compare third-party evaluations in a consistent and accessible way.

Risk Management for Mitigating Benchmark Failure Modes: BenchRisk

Large language model (LLM) benchmarks inform LLM use decisions (e.g., "is this LLM safe to deploy for my use case and context?"). However, benchmarks may be rendered unreliable by various failure modes that impact benchmark bias, variance, coverage, or people's capacity to understand benchmark evidence. Using the National Institute of Standards and Technology's risk management process as a foundation, this research iteratively analyzed 26 popular benchmarks, identifying 57 potential failure modes and 196 corresponding mitigation strategies. The mitigations reduce failure likelihood and/or severity, providing a frame for evaluating "benchmark risk," which is scored to provide a metaevaluation benchmark: BenchRisk. Higher scores indicate that benchmark users are less likely to reach an incorrect or unsupported conclusion about an LLM. All 26 scored benchmarks present significant risk within one or more of the five scored dimensions (comprehensiveness, intelligibility, consistency, correctness, and longevity), which points to important open research directions for the field of LLM benchmarking. The BenchRisk workflow allows for comparison between benchmarks; as an open-source tool, it also facilitates the identification and sharing of risks and their mitigations.

Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluation

While the capabilities and utility of AI systems have advanced, rigorous norms for evaluating these systems have lagged. Grand claims, such as models achieving general reasoning capabilities, are supported with model performance on narrow benchmarks, like performance on graduate-level exam questions, which provide a limited and potentially misleading assessment. We provide a structured approach for reasoning about the types of evaluative claims that can be made given the available evidence. For instance, our framework helps determine whether performance on a mathematical benchmark is an indication of the ability to solve problems on math tests or instead indicates a broader ability to reason. Our framework is well-suited for the contemporary paradigm in machine learning, where various stakeholders provide measurements and evaluations that downstream users use to validate their claims and decisions. At the same time, our framework also informs the construction of evaluations designed to speak to the validity of the relevant claims. By leveraging psychometrics' breakdown of validity, evaluations can prioritize the most critical facets for a given claim, improving empirical utility and decision-making efficacy. We illustrate our framework through detailed case studies of vision and language model evaluations, highlighting how explicitly considering validity strengthens the connection between evaluation evidence and the claims being made.

Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2025

Welcome to the eighth edition of the AI Index report. The 2025 Index is our most comprehensive to date and arrives at an important moment, as AI's influence across society, the economy, and global governance continues to intensify. New in this year's report are in-depth analyses of the evolving landscape of AI hardware, novel estimates of inference costs, and new analyses of AI publication and patenting trends. We also introduce fresh data on corporate adoption of responsible AI practices, along with expanded coverage of AI's growing role in science and medicine. Since its founding in 2017 as an offshoot of the One Hundred Year Study of Artificial Intelligence, the AI Index has been committed to equipping policymakers, journalists, executives, researchers, and the public with accurate, rigorously validated, and globally sourced data. Our mission has always been to help these stakeholders make better-informed decisions about the development and deployment of AI. In a world where AI is discussed everywhere - from boardrooms to kitchen tables - this mission has never been more essential. The AI Index continues to lead in tracking and interpreting the most critical trends shaping the field - from the shifting geopolitical landscape and the rapid evolution of underlying technologies, to AI's expanding role in business, policymaking, and public life. Longitudinal tracking remains at the heart of our mission. In a domain advancing at breakneck speed, the Index provides essential context - helping us understand where AI stands today, how it got here, and where it may be headed next. Recognized globally as one of the most authoritative resources on artificial intelligence, the AI Index has been cited in major media outlets such as The New York Times, Bloomberg, and The Guardian; referenced in hundreds of academic papers; and used by policymakers and government agencies around the world.

Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI

The rapid development of advanced AI agents and the imminent deployment of many instances of these agents will give rise to multi-agent systems of unprecedented complexity. These systems pose novel and under-explored risks. In this report, we provide a structured taxonomy of these risks by identifying three key failure modes (miscoordination, conflict, and collusion) based on agents' incentives, as well as seven key risk factors (information asymmetries, network effects, selection pressures, destabilising dynamics, commitment problems, emergent agency, and multi-agent security) that can underpin them. We highlight several important instances of each risk, as well as promising directions to help mitigate them. By anchoring our analysis in a range of real-world examples and experimental evidence, we illustrate the distinct challenges posed by multi-agent systems and their implications for the safety, governance, and ethics of advanced AI.