Position: Every Ground Truth is a Human Construction, not an Objective Truth

State-of-the-Art (SOTA) claims pervade Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) research. These claims rest on benchmark evaluations, where models are ranked by aggregate scores across tasks. Public benchmarks or leaderboards are the most visible instance, but the same structure appears in paper tables throughout the literature. However, such minimal evidence often cannot support these strong claims. We identify a widespread claim-evidence gap in AI benchmarking. Claiming SOTA carries implicit assumptions beyond mean score superiority, suggesting that a model meaningfully outperforms alternatives across most tasks. However, a marginal improvement in the mean score merely indicates a top average rank rather than true superiority. Analyzing ten cross-domain benchmarks from public leaderboards, we found that in more than half of top-model comparisons, at least one commonly assumed property of superiority does not hold. These properties include meaningful effect size, consistency across tasks, or robustness to dataset removal. Instead, aggregate gains are frequently driven by outlier datasets. This fragility persists even in benchmarks with many tasks. We argue that claim language should reflect the strength of the underlying evidence. This requires no additional experiments, only honest reporting of what results actually show, enabling more precise and interpretable comparisons across models.

How much of my data was used to train a machine learning model? Dataset Usage Inference (DUI) aims to answer this by estimating what fraction of a dataset contributed to a model's training. However, existing DUI methods rely on assumptions that rarely hold in practice: they require training expensive shadow models to imitate the target model, and they assume access to both known training samples and an in-distribution held-out set confirmed to be absent from training. These conditions make current approaches impractical for modern large models and real data ownership disputes. We introduce a practical DUI framework that removes these constraints. Our method requires neither shadow models nor real held-out data. Instead, it generates synthetic non-member samples, extracts diverse membership signals, and casts DUI as a mixture proportion estimation problem to estimate what share of the candidate dataset was used during training. Experiments on large image generative models show that our method reliably quantifies dataset usage, providing a practical tool for data owners to determine how much of their data was used to train a model.

GUI grounding models report over 85% accuracy on standard benchmarks, yet drop 27-56 percentage points when instructions require spatial reasoning rather than direct element naming. Current benchmarks miss this because they evaluate each screenshot once with a single fixed instruction. We introduce GUI-Perturbed, a controlled perturbation framework that independently varies visual scenes and instructions to measure grounding robustness. Evaluating three 7B models from the same architecture lineage, we find that relational instructions cause systematic accuracy collapse across all models, a 70% browser zoom produces statistically significant degradation, and rank-8 LoRA fine-tuning with augmented data degrades performance rather than improving it. By perturbing along independent axes, GUI-Perturbed isolates which specific capability axes are affected-spatial reasoning, visual robustness, reasoning calibration-providing diagnostic signal that aggregate benchmarks cannot. We release the dataset, augmentation pipeline, and a fine-tuned model.