One Capability or Many? Structural and Predictive Tests of Benchmark Validity Disagree About Economic Benchmarks for Frontier AI

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.

The primary way to establish and compare competencies in foundation and generative AI models has shifted from peer-reviewed literature to press releases and company blog posts, where model builders highlight results on selected benchmarks. These artifacts now largely define the state of the art for researchers and the public. Despite their prominence, which benchmarks model builders choose to highlight, and what they communicate through this selection, is underexamined. To investigate, we introduce and open-source Benchmarking-Cultures-25, a dataset of 231 benchmarks highlighted across 139 model releases in 2025 from 11 major AI builders, alongside an interactive tool to explore the data. Our analysis reveals a fragmented evaluation landscape with limited cross-model comparability: 63.2% of highlighted benchmarks are used by a single builder, and 38.5% appear in just one release. Few achieve widespread use (e.g., GPQA Diamond, LiveCodeBench, AIME 2025). Moreover, benchmarks are attributed different competencies by different builders, depending on their narrative. To disentangle these conflicting presentations, we develop a unified taxonomy mapping diverging terminology to a shared framework of measured signals based on what benchmark authors claim to measure. "General knowledge application" is the second most popular, yet vaguely defined, category. Qualitative analysis shows many such benchmarks deemphasize construct validity, instead framing results as indicators of progress toward AGI. Their authors claim to measure knowledge or reasoning broadly, yet mostly evaluate STEM subjects (especially math). We argue that highlighted benchmarks function less as standardized measurement tools and more as flexible narrative devices prioritizing market positioning over scientific evaluation. Data: https://hf.co/datasets/matybohacek/benchmarking-cultures-25; tool: https://bench-cultures.net.

A forecasting benchmark reports which method won. We show that the answer is set by the evaluator's choices before any model is fitted. We benchmark 24 forecasting methods and one textbook reference, including six 2025-era time series foundation models, on a production marketplace panel of 1,887 business customers over 67 months. We hold the data, the horizon and the period fixed, and vary only the evaluation design. Three choices each reverse or dissolve a headline conclusion. Changing the unit of analysis from the market total to the individual customer moves our production baseline from second of nineteen, beaten by nothing, to twenty-third of twenty-five. Nineteen of its twenty-four challengers beat it there. Changing how much error is pooled decides whether a Diebold-Mariano test finds anything at all. Scoring prediction intervals rather than point forecasts reorders the field almost completely, with a rank correlation of 0.02 on intermittent demand. We then measure what the deployed system gets from this. Its selection rule captures 55% of the distance between doing nothing and choosing with hindsight. The reversal is not a quirk of our data. We ran the released protocol, unchanged, on the public M5 retail panel. The same baseline shape places first at the market total and last per series, beaten by everything, and a replayed selection rule closes 64.7% of the same floor-to-ceiling distance there. Adding five zero-shot foundation models to that roster changes who wins at the total, not the shape. The bands' blind spot travels too: conformal bands under-cover most on the spikiest items. Splitting our own panel into ever smaller groups turns the contrast into a curve: the baseline's rank worsens at every level of disaggregation. We release the evaluation protocol and report an error of our own that inverted a result before we caught it.