Artificial Intelligence Benchmarks

Benchmark researchers and developers of large language models (LLMs) and other AI systems need to find relevant evaluations, locate their benchmark datasets and code, and understand the settings behind reported scores. We present Benchmark Radar, a living database and search engine for retrieval and discovery of AI benchmarks, covering LLM evaluation, agentic and tool-use benchmarks, coding, reasoning, safety, and domain-specific evaluations. The system combines daily discovery of benchmark papers, repositories, datasets, and releases with a searchable benchmark catalog, mentions in model cards and technical reports, and score histories. It retains source identities and citations so readers can inspect candidate benchmarks and their evaluation evidence. Daily discovery draws on 37 sources: 13 direct connectors and 24 first-party research and engineering feeds. The catalog contains 1,283 source records drawn from 4 benchmark catalogs and 12,916 numeric observations on 790 records. We describe collection and retrieval, audit the full catalog, and examine benchmark saturation, adoption trends, and the limits of score comparisons. A worked example walks through a complete prior-art search, showing how to query the catalog and inspect benchmark evidence when designing a new evaluation. We release the web dashboard with a benchmark leaderboard, a Pareto frontier view of score against measured use, saturation and trend views, daily feeds, downloadable evidence, a command-line interface (CLI) for offline queries, and reproducible analysis.

Benchmark scores are a central currency in model releases: they inform purchasing decisions, shape public trust, and influence policy. Yet, a key assumption underlying benchmark scores is that the model performance measured through APIs faithfully reflects the behavior of deployed systems. We challenge this assumption by auditing ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini across seven systems and nine benchmarks spanning general capability, social bias, and sycophancy. We find systematic API--interface differences in both accuracy and consistency. On average, API evaluations score 3.4 percentage points higher in accuracy and 2.1 percentage points higher in test--retest agreement than corresponding interface evaluations. For ChatGPT, the performance difference between API and interface access exceeds the API-only difference between GPT 5.3 and GPT 5.4. Put differently, switching access surfaces can degrade performance as much as downgrading a full model generation. We further test whether exposed API controls can reproduce interface behavior by varying system prompts, sampling parameters, and reasoning settings. These controls shift behavior in some cases but do not reliably eliminate the gap. Our findings document a context-validity gap: measurements obtained through APIs do not necessarily generalize to corresponding deployed interfaces, complicating the use of API evaluations as proxies for deployed systems.

Discovery---formulating novel generalizations---is a central part of the scientific process. Despite its importance, there is a gap in the current AI benchmark landscape, with few benchmarks directly probing the capacity for discovering new knowledge with experimentation in controlled environments where the objective is unknown. To address this gap, we release a new benchmark: DiG-bench (Discovery in Games). DiG-bench consists of a set of 70 independent games. Each game is encoded as a short string and has unique transformation rules that must be discovered through interaction and experimentation. The levels of the game present a series of challenges to test whether the rules have been discovered, where the win conditions for each level are also unknown. We provide games at seven tiers of difficulty for AI agents. The lowest tier is routinely solvable by multiple models, while the highest tier challenges the best models in agentic harnesses. All 70 games were solved by at least one human on first attempt. A subset of 21 games is released publicly, and the remainder is held private for secure evaluation.

Governments increasingly fund indigenous foundation models to strengthen national AI capability, digital sovereignty, and multilingual computing. Assessing the progress of such national ecosystems is complicated by inconsistent benchmark reporting, proprietary evaluation methodologies, and rapidly evolving model releases. This paper presents a structured, benchmark-based comparative assessment of publicly benchmarked Indian foundation models against global frontier and comparable-scale models, across eight capability domains: general-purpose reasoning, coding and software engineering, agentic AI and computer use, cybersecurity, vision and image understanding, video and multimodal understanding, scientific research, and Indic language capability. Using only publicly reported benchmark results, we find that Indian models achieve strong scores on established benchmarks such as MMLU and MATH-500. However, these benchmarks are now widely regarded as saturated, and frontier developers no longer report them. Indian models participate far less frequently in newer, agentic, and domain-specialized evaluations. Benchmark participation is also highly uneven across Indian organizations. Among the models surveyed, Sarvam AI reports the broadest benchmark coverage by a substantial margin. We propose an exploratory four-dimension Benchmark Maturity Index (BMI), scoring each capability domain on standardization, participation, independent verification, and national coverage. We show that the BMI refines, and in some cases revises, the maturity judgments that a purely descriptive review would produce. We argue that many apparent capability gaps in the public record cannot be distinguished, on available evidence, from evaluation-ecosystem gaps. This has direct implications for how national AI programs should design monitoring and funding criteria.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of legal tasks. In legal practice, time is a critical concept that governs the validity of statutes, the progression of legal cases, and the enforcement of procedural deadlines. However, legal temporal capabilities remain underexplored in existing legal AI benchmarks. To address this gap, we propose LexKairos, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating the temporal capabilities of LLMs in the Chinese legal context across three dimensions: statutory temporal knowledge, case temporal modeling, and statute-case temporal reasoning. LexKairos comprises nine sub-tasks drawn from real-world Chinese judicial cases and statutes. We conduct systematic evaluations of eight LLMs under multiple inference settings, including vanilla, Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and thinking modes. Our results show that Gemini-3-Flash achieves the strongest overall performance, yet even the best-performing model exhibits notable limitations on tasks demanding precise time-sensitive statutory metadata recall or complex reasoning in time limits, indicating that legal temporal knowledge and reasoning remain open challenges for current LLMs. Data and code are available at https://github.com/thunlp/LexKairos.

Large language model (LLM) benchmark evaluations are routinely used to support claims about model safety, reliability, and deployment readiness. Yet most evaluations rely on a single access modality (model APIs), perform a single run per prompt, and report accuracy as the primary outcome metric, without accounting for conditions such as web search that may have effects on model behavior in deployment. We audit these assumptions for one of the most widely-used LLMs, comparing two modalities, ChatGPT's chat UI and OpenAI's API, with and without web search enabled. We use a stratified total sample of 401 prompts from two popular benchmarks, BBQ and SafetyBench, collecting 4,812 total responses across three repeated runs per prompt. Beyond standard performance measures, we evaluate model output dimensions including response consistency, response text similarity, citation grounding, and abstention behavior. For instance, chat UI responses were less accurate than API responses on both benchmarks with search disabled. Enabling web search reduced accuracy by up to 8 percentage points, and even reversed the direction of modality performance trends for one benchmark. Repeated runs of the same prompt produced inconsistent responses in up to 21% of prompts. The two modalities also grounded answers in different citations, and abstention behavior was also inconsistent across both modalities. These results illustrate that, even within a model family, reporting only simple accuracy metrics can obscure important forms of model behavioral variation relevant to AI safety assessments. We argue that AI safety evaluations should systematically account for modality, multi-run consistency, search conditions, and response-level behaviors to better reflect how deployed AI systems behave in practice.

Benchmarking the ability of AI scientists to generate novel ideas is notoriously difficult. Existing benchmarks in this field have made progress in evaluating scientific reasoning and research replication, but often rely on synthetic tasks or retrospective targets, which may be confounded by prior exposure. We hypothesize that complex, adversarial, fast-moving real-world domains where expert practitioners independently generate observable outputs can provide a practical solution to fill this gap and evaluate the capabilities needed for AI scientists, including reasoning, novelty, and hypothesis formulation. We instantiate this framework in two structurally different domains, Formula 1 (F1), where models ideate around car design concepts for the 2026 season, and real pre-season innovations provide a ground truth, and Magic: The Gathering (MTG), where models propose decks from a recently updated card pool and are evaluated against 19 Pro Tour (PT) decklists. Across both domains, models produce plausible outputs, but few align with real-world expert solutions. In F1, the best model, GPT-5.2 matched 10 of 40 real innovations with 166 ideas proposed across runs. In MTG, the best deck from Gemini 3 Flash recovered 5 of 7 new-set cards from the third-place PT deck, and across all 108 decks, the cards models selected most often were also the cards most widely adopted by PT decks (Spearman $ρ= 0.74$, $p = 0.0003$). These results suggest that a key capability gap for AI scientists is not idea generation, but filtering, prioritization, and coherent novelty.

The AI Security Leaderboard is an independent benchmark that ranks the safeguards of frontier AI models from least to most secure. It tests models against the FAR$.$AI Minimal Standard for Safeguards, which represents a minimum bar for security: meeting it does not guarantee a secure model, but failing to meet it guarantees a lack of state-of-the-art security. Version 1.0 covers severe misuse requests across chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) threats and offensive cybersecurity. In this report, we tested four leading models for universal jailbreaks in the context of this minimal standard, and found more than a hundredfold difference in security. Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol held against every attack we ran, with no universal jailbreak found; we estimate they would likely cost more than $14,200 to jailbreak, if it is possible with this methodology at all. Meanwhile, we found hundreds of universal jailbreaks for Grok 4.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro; each broke for under $300, with universal jailbreaks in Grok's weakest domain, cybersecurity, accessible for as little as $24. The gap is fixable: every weakness we found belongs to a known class of attack that already has a defense deployed in production models. The leaderboard will be updated on a rolling basis as new models are released, and the evaluation methodology and Minimal Standard will be periodically revised to take into account the latest capabilities and the state-of-the-art in safeguards. The leaderboard is available at leaderboard.far.ai.

Latin America is missing a foundational layer for native AI development: the benchmark layer. The benchmark layer does two things no other layer can - it audits AI systems against regional social requirements and it directs AI optimization in economically relevant environments. Without it, public institutions cannot independently evaluate foreign AI systems, and companies cannot optimize AI systems to solve local problems with SOTA performance. The cost of the missing layer is dual: a loss of auditability and a loss of optimization direction over a technology that is increasingly critical infrastructure. We propose an EvalsHub, with LatamBoard as its first regional instance - an open, task-first benchmark infrastructure where universities, public institutions, professional communities, and companies can publish, execute, compare, and maintain evaluations across models, workflows, and agents. Built once, measured forever - re-run by institutions as new AI systems ship and by industry teams after every system change. Open by design and incentive-driven by construction.

Latin America is missing two foundational layers of AI infrastructure: the dataset layer and the benchmark layer. This paper targets the dataset layer. The dataset layer faces two compounding problems: discovery and supply. Latin American AI datasets exist but are scattered across platforms with no shared index. Even with perfect indexing, the total volume would remain far below what frontier AI development requires. We propose DataHub: a task-first data infrastructure organized through the ontology /<task?>/<domain?>/<language?>, with mechanisms for dataset discovery, metadata, contribution, licensing, and reuse.

In this paper we present an active, constantly updated AI benchmark which measures the integrity of frontier language models against being co-opted for use by authoritarian state "information operations": intentional, coordinated activities by one state to influence public opinion and information ecosystems in another state. These information operations are a well documented, persistent threat against contemporary democracy. Our benchmark is based on real examples from over 2,100 information operations drawn from a live monitoring pipeline which tracks online information assets with links to authoritarian regimes. Alongside this paper, we also release a companion website that updates the benchmark weekly with new claims. The dynamic nature of this public facing benchmark makes it resistant to saturation. In the benchmark, we test 17 models from 8 providers across four prompt framings. We find that most models can be co-opted for information operations at least some of the time. Integrity scores, defined as the share of judged responses in which the model neither preserved nor amplified the claim, range from 9.3% to 91%, an 81.7-percentage-point spread not explained by model size. Models approach participation in information operations in a variety of ways. Some models fabricate details and produce output more harmful than the original input claim; others make claims less harmful even while complying and producing some output. Fact-checking rates vary from 3.2% to 80.8%. Integrity against information operations is at least partly related to refusal to produce content even for benign claims, illustrating the challenge of balancing model usability with safety. Overall, our results show the potential for contemporary information operations to be substantially aided by frontier AI models.

International recruitment in France requires navigating a layered legal framework absent from existing legal AI benchmarks. We present a publicly available benchmark and first comparative evaluation for this domain, covering permit-type recommendation, required-document retrieval, and legal citation coverage. Comparing a parametric LLM baseline against dense retrieval augmentation at two model scales (Qwen3.5-9B and -27B) on 52 annotated synthetic profiles, we find that retrieval improves administrative guidance at both scales, most notably permit-type accuracy. Our results confirm that retrieval grounding is important for more reliable administrative guidance in this domain, and motivate further investigation of hybrid retrieval strategies.

Large language models (LLMs) are improving rapidly as reflected in benchmark scores, yet these AI benchmarks largely test capabilities such as factual recall, narrow question answering, mathematical problem-solving, and coding and agentic tool-use. What remains poorly measured is AI progress on the analytical knowledge work white-collar professionals perform daily, including synthesizing complex information, exercising judgment under uncertainty and incomplete information, applying strategic and adversarial thinking in multi-stakeholder settings, weighing trade-offs, and producing defensible, structured analyses. This gap is even more pronounced for subjective components of such work, where success can be challenging to define. The "case method" form of education practiced by top business schools provides a natural foundation for addressing this measurement gap, and we construct BusinessCaseBench, a benchmark spanning hundreds of questions drawn from business cases across eighteen disciplines, each paired with a grading rubric derived from the expert-written instructor case solution. On BusinessCaseBench, frontier AI models already score highly against instructor rubrics, and capability within one model family improves substantially over two years. These results provide strong evidence that AI performance on this class of work is already high and rapidly improving, with implications for business schools, where case pedagogy trains undergraduates and MBAs in this kind of analytical reasoning, and for entry-level professional roles, where such skills have historically anchored early-career work.

AI benchmarks increasingly leverage item-level statistical models, particularly item response theory (IRT), to estimate model capabilities, rank systems, select informative examples, and diagnose benchmark quality. However, AI benchmark data often departs from the data regime of human testing, for which standard IRT estimation tools were originally developed: benchmarks typically involve fewer evaluated models, far more items, and capability distributions that may be skewed, clustered, or multimodal. We examine how these regime mismatches challenge the reliability of IRT modeling for AI evaluation. Using item parameters and capability distributions derived from six widely used LLM benchmarks, we simulate response matrices under three common IRT models and compare four estimation tools used in recent benchmark studies: marginal maximum likelihood, Markov chain Monte Carlo, variational inference, and a neural pseudo-Siamese estimator. Across 18,000 simulation conditions, we systematically evaluate computational feasibility, scalability, and the reliability of IRT inferences about model rankings, predicted performance, and item characteristics. Results show that classical estimators can become infeasible in large benchmark settings, whereas scalable estimators can produce unreliable item-level and ranking inferences with small or nonnormally distributed model sets. This study identifies when latent trait models reliably support or risk distorting AI benchmarking claims, and what sample sizes and diagnostics are needed for trustworthy use.

As exponential compute scaling continues, will the capabilities of frontier AI models outstrip what is accessible to developers on a small fixed budget? Or will capabilities converge, with "meek models inheriting the earth"? Building on Gundlach et al. (2025b), we show that the answer depends on how we value and measure AI capabilities. We discuss conventional performance measures and show that, while validation loss shows a shrinking gap, on other metrics frontier models grow their lead forever. Classifying performance metrics by their functional forms in relation to training (and inference) compute, we provide tight mathematical conditions for determining which metrics favor meek models, and show that bounded performance metrics always do. But careful interpretation of performance metrics is essential: we show that many common bounded metrics have closely-related counterpart metrics that are unbounded (and vice versa). Determining the apt metric in a domain is a prerequisite for policy, since bounded and unbounded metrics may suggest opposing policy responses. If a particular capability -- like software engineering, synthetic biology, or rhetorical persuasiveness -- is unbounded when measured in the terms we care about, frontier-level capability will likely be concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy actors. Conversely, if that capability is instead bounded, frontier-level capabilities proliferate through meek models into the hands of the many.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has achieved remarkable success in medical imaging, but it is widely recognized that these models often perform inconsistently across real-world clinical settings. Such inconsistencies occur when patient demographics and imaging protocols vary, for example, in detecting small tumors, analyzing scans from different contrast phases, or evaluating patients of different ages or sexes. To quantify these inconsistencies, we develop a large-scale, open benchmark of 85,355 CT scans that systematically evaluates 12 tumor-detection AI models across tumor size, location, patient subgroup, and imaging protocol. We leverage large language models (LLMs) to extract and organize subgroup information from clinical data, which makes the analysis both scalable and reproducible. Our benchmark reveals that current state-of-the-art AI models, optimized for average accuracy, perform poorly in rare or underrepresented subgroups, such as young, female African Americans. However, collecting sufficient annotated data for these rare cases is often impractical. The benchmark provides a foundation for building more reliable and robust AI models for tumor detection and highlighting the need for rigorous, subgroup-level evaluation in medical imaging and computer vision. Datasets, code

People increasingly get answers straight from AI search engines like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Gemini rather than scrolling search results. Brands that once focused on search engine optimization (SEO) must now optimize for how these engines represent, cite, and recommend them -- a shift variously called Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), Answer Engine Optimization (AEO), and AI Search Visibility. We treat AEO and AI Visibility as part of GEO, and study how to measure brand visibility across AI engines: what they value when they cite a brand, which sources they rely on, and what content large language models surface. The hard case is everyone outside the already-authoritative top brands -- SMEs, D2C brands, creators, and early-stage startups. We analyze 100K+ prompt responses across 100+ brands tracked on Ranqo between March and May 2026. First visibility runs form a clear three-tier brand-stature ladder: global household names (e.g., Stripe, Nike) appear in 73% of relevant AI answers on their first run; established mid-market and regional brands (e.g., Olipop, Klaviyo) in 44%; niche and small brands in just 11% -- about 30 percentage points per step. When engines cite sources, about 78% go to corporate websites; among non-corporate sources YouTube leads, ahead of Reddit, editorial media, and Wikipedia. The highest-leverage page is the ranked "best-of" listicle, the most-cited content format at about 21% of all citations. Sentiment is the unstable signal: whether a brand is framed positively or negatively flips about 6.7 times more often than whether it is mentioned at all. These findings provide a first large-scale baseline for measuring GEO: AI brand visibility can be measured, differs by platform, and varies strongly by brand maturity. We close by proposing seven v1.1 protocols to test whether specific recommendations can causally improve AI visibility.

Forecasting benchmarks for general-purpose AI systems usually inherit the constraints of the real world: outcomes resolve slowly, tail events are rare, and counterfactual questions are difficult to score. We introduce ForecastBench-Sim, a simulated-world forecasting benchmark built on game rollouts from Freeciv, a turn-based strategy game modelled on the Civilization series. Forecasters receive a fixed world report (a structured snapshot of the current game state) and answer questions about hidden future states; the benchmark then continues the simulation and scores forecasts. Because the world is simulated, the same setup can generate continuous or binary forecasting questions at arbitrary time horizons, paired intervention worlds for conditional or causal questions, and resolved examples of rare or disruptive outcomes. We describe the benchmark pipeline, question families, scoring protocol, and release artifacts, and report validation slices from model evaluations and an anonymized human pilot. ForecastBench-Sim is intended to complement real-world forecasting benchmarks by providing controlled, immediately resolvable tasks for studying probabilistic reasoning under dynamic world states.

Legal AI benchmark research frequently invokes the assumption that large language models can improve access to justice, including for people who cannot access lawyers in order to understand and exercise their legal rights. We argue that current benchmarks are not equipped to support this assumption because they evaluate legal reasoning over inputs that have already been preprocessed by legal experts, which measures the upper bound of model performance. Access to justice depends on a lower bound: how models perform when inputs come from pro se litigants, whose prompts may contain noisy narratives, buried facts, omissions, folk-legal assumptions, and surface-level errors. These degradations are comparable to conditions under which LLMs are known to degrade in the general machine learning literature, including long-context sensitivity, underspecification, hallucination, and typographical perturbations. We connect evidence from pro se literature with this body of machine learning research and present a small perturbation experiment on LEXam, a legal benchmark, to illustrate the gap between these two bounds. If model development continues to focus on benchmarks that measure only the upper bound, this gap may remain hidden or even widen. We conclude by calling for legal benchmarks that directly measure robustness under pro se-like inputs so that access-to-justice claims about legal AI can become empirically testable.

We consider the concentration properties of functions of infinitely exchangeable random variables. By conditioning on the de Finetti directing measure, we show that the deviation of any function with bounded-difference constants $c_1, \dots, c_n$ decomposes into a conditional sampling fluctuation and a latent mixture fluctuation. When this latent mixture is $σ_{\mathrm{mix}}^2$-subgaussian, we establish a concentration inequality with an effective variance proxy of $\frac{1}{4}\sum_i c_i^2 + σ_{\mathrm{mix}}^2$. Crucially, we demonstrate that for zero-sum linear contrasts, such as the difference between a subsample mean and a full population mean, the latent mixture term cancels exactly. This cancellation yields a tight, mixture-free Hoeffding-type bound that provides a direct de Finetti mechanism for the infinite-extendibility limit of recent finite-exchangeable concentration results. We apply this framework to quantify uncertainty in composite AI benchmarks, such as MMLU, where question items naturally exhibit exchangeable dependence across domains. Our results provide both a domain-stratified hierarchical model for bounding the uncertainty of accuracy scores, and a distribution-free, cost-saving statistical guarantee for accurately estimating full benchmark scores from random subsets.

A central pedagogical value evaluated in AI tutor benchmarks is scaffolding: guiding students through graduated steps toward a solution. Alignment and evaluation methods for embedding scaffolding behaviour into chatbots, however, rest on an implicit assumption: that students will take up the scaffolding and engage in the conversation. To examine whether this assumption holds, we introduce an evaluation pipeline around two metrics - Chatbot Scaffolding and Student Uptake - and apply them across nine datasets of 9,490 chats, spanning AI tutor benchmarks and real-world deployments of educational chatbots. Our analysis reveals that while benchmarks assume a high-scaffolding, high-student-uptake environment, students in real-world settings exhibit lower levels of uptake overall - frequently bypassing the chatbot's pedagogical framing to drive the interaction toward their own learning goals at little interpersonal cost. We argue that bypassing scaffolding is not necessarily detrimental; rather, it frequently highlights a mismatch between a chatbot's pedagogical framing and the student's learning goals. To meaningfully evaluate the effectiveness of a chatbot's assistance, future benchmarks must move beyond the assumption that students will simply take up the scaffolding, and instead evaluate how these chatbots navigate diverse learning contexts and student-driven interaction patterns.

Frontier AI systems are increasingly capable of cybersecurity tasks, including codebase inspection, vulnerability detection, and exploitation. However, evaluating their offensive capabilities remains constrained by limited access to open, reproducible, multi-host cyber ranges. Existing public benchmarks capture isolated skills such as CTF solving, vulnerability reproduction, and exploit generation, but often abstract away realistic intrusion workflows: discovering exposed services, gaining a foothold, collecting internal information, and expanding compromise across hosts. This gap makes it difficult to observe emerging risks early, because frontier AI systems are rarely evaluated under realistic attack conditions. We introduce AgentCyberRange, the first open, multi-range infrastructure for measuring autonomous cyber attack capability in realistic cyber ranges. It combines 110 vulnerabilities across 15 real web applications and 8 enterprise-like cyber ranges with 156 internal hosts, plus Cage, a toolchain for execution, orchestration, result collection, and verification. The benchmark covers two core stages: web exploitation, where agents explore exposed applications and validate vulnerabilities, and post exploitation, where agents turn an initial foothold into broader internal compromise. We evaluate six frontier AI systems under matched prompts and budgets. GPT-5.5 with Codex performs best, solving 16.1% of web exploitation tasks and 31.7% of post-exploitation tasks; with more concrete hints, these rates increase to 33.0% and 46.3%. We also observe out-of-benchmark findings, including unknown vulnerabilities in popular projects, and payload mutation that bypasses host defenses. These results show that open cyber-range evaluation is necessary for observing emerging offensive capabilities under realistic and reproducible conditions.

Existing AI evaluation practices often fail to capture how systems actually perform in low-resource environments, where operational constraints shape usability as much as model quality. Through a structured analysis of existing benchmark families across speech, chat/RAG, and vision systems, we identify critical gaps between laboratory evaluation practices and real-world deployment conditions in low-resource environments. We argue that the meaningful unit of assessment is the deployed system rather than an isolated model and that effective evaluation frameworks must integrate task performance with deployment conditions such as noisy inputs, code-switching, intermittent connectivity, low-end hardware, and domain shift. At the same time, benchmarks should recognize that different application classes require distinct evaluation profiles rather than a single aggregate score that obscures operational differences. To support practical decision-making, we propose a shared reporting framework that preserves comparability across systems and application types while remaining sensitive to deployment context. Finally, we emphasize the need for concise and actionable reporting artifacts for policymakers, donors, and implementers, including standardized one-page benchmark cards, deployment profiles, and explicit documentation of failure handling procedures and human oversight mechanisms.

Modern AI benchmarks operate at a complexity that outpaces traditional verification methods. Tasks authored by domain experts often contain implicit assumptions, incomplete environment specifications, and brittle evaluation logic that human annotation cannot reliably catch. We introduce Auto Benchmark Audit (ABA), an agentic framework that systematically audits individual benchmark tasks, uncovering issues such as hidden environment dependencies, specification gaps, and limited grading logic. We run ABA on a collection of frontier LLM benchmarks and previous NeurIPS publications, totaling 168 benchmarks across nine domains. Across this corpus, ABA identifies critical issues including ambiguous task design, execution environment conflicts, and incorrect ground truths in over 25.7% of the evaluated tasks. The precision of these automated audits is validated by expert review and independent third-party reports such as upstream PRs. Crucially, we demonstrate that these problematic tasks severely distorts capability assessments for agents and LLMs: filtering out these tasks with issues shifts model rankings and increases average performance on SWE-bench Verified and Terminal-Bench 2 by 9.9% and 9.6%, respectively. We release the agentic tool and all task annotations to support the future development of frontier benchmarks.

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.

Accurate evaluation of weather forecasting models is critical for their reliable deployment in real-world applications. However, existing benchmarks predominantly rely on reanalysis products such as ERA5, which are generated through delayed data assimilation and do not reflect the constraints of real-time operational forecasting, thereby resulting in a systematic mismatch between benchmark performance and real-world forecasting. In this work, we introduce RealBench, a next-generation benchmark for AI weather forecasting that emphasizes realistic evaluation under operational conditions. RealBench features a strictly out-of-distribution test set spanning 2025 to eliminate data leakage and capture recent atmospheric regimes. It integrates multiple data sources, including low-latency operational analysis and a large-scale global in-situ observation dataset comprising over 10,000 stations, enabling direct evaluation against real atmospheric measurements. Beyond standard global metrics, RealBench provides a comprehensive evaluation framework for high-impact extreme events, including heatwaves, cold surges, and tropical cyclones, using event-specific metrics that better reflect real-world forecasting priorities. The evaluation results reveal substantial discrepancies between reanalysis-based metrics and real-world performance, particularly concerning extreme events. By highlighting the limitations of existing benchmarks, this work establishes a more faithful and operationally relevant evaluation paradigm, providing a rigorous foundation for advancing next-generation AI weather forecasting systems. The benchmark implementation is available at: https://github.com/lixruize-del/NWP-Benchmark.

As AI becomes part of everyday learning, many courses teach students to use it mainly as a productivity tool: how to prompt, search, summarize, write, code, and use tools more efficiently. We argue that AI education also needs a setting in which students learn to test AI and understand their own role in judging machine-produced knowledge. To this end, we introduce a course-based practice that teaches AI through benchmark construction, using deep research systems as a concrete example of AI-era knowledge work. Students turn disciplinary knowledge into verifiable expert-level questions, review one another's designs for ambiguity and shortcuts, and evaluate AI systems on the resulting tasks. This activity gives students direct exposure to a powerful tool while asking them to specify what a trustworthy answer would require. The produced benchmark, QuestBench, consists of 256 questions across 14 humanities and social-science domains. Evaluation on QuestBench shows that student-designed tasks reveal hidden failures in current deep research systems: across thirteen evaluated systems, the mean question-level pass rate is only 16.85%, and the best-performing system, GPT-5.5, reaches a 57.58% pass rate. The failures are educationally useful because they show how fluent, source-backed answers can still miss the right query, source, term, or evidence standard. Reflections from five student contributors suggest that benchmark construction can help students see professional knowledge not only as content AI may retrieve, but as the basis for judging AI outputs. We present QuestBench as a benchmark artifact and as a reusable classroom setting for a larger educational question: how students can remain responsible knowledge actors as AI enters learning and professional work. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/PKUAIWeb/QuestBench/tree/main.

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.

Every AI benchmark operationalizes theoretical assumptions about the capability it claims to assess. When assumptions function as unexamined commitments, benchmarks stabilize the dominant paradigm by narrowing what counts as progress. Over time, narrow evaluation reorganizes capability concepts: architectures and definitions are selected for benchmark legibility until evaluation ceases to track an independent object and instead produces a version of the target defined by its own operational assumptions. The result is a trap: evaluation frameworks treat self-reinforcing assessments as valid, both creating and obscuring structural limits on what the current paradigm can accomplish. We introduce Epistematics, a methodology for deriving evaluation criteria directly from technical capability claims and auditing whether proposed benchmarks can discriminate the claimed capability from proxy behaviors. The contribution is meta-evaluative: an audit procedure, a failure mode taxonomy, and benchmark-design criteria for evaluating capability-evaluation coherence. We demonstrate the procedure through a worked audit of Dupoux et al. (2026), a proposal that revises the dominant paradigm's theoretical assumptions at the architectural level while reproducing them in its evaluation criteria, thereby entrenching the constraint it seeks to overcome in a form the evaluation cannot detect.

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.

Benchmark evaluation across AI and safety-critical domains overwhelmingly relies on simple averaging. We demonstrate that this practice produces substantially misleading rankings when two conditions co-occur: (1) the evaluation matrix is sparse and (2) items vary substantially in difficulty. Through controlled simulation experiments across four domains -- NLP (GLUE), clinical drug trials, autonomous vehicle safety, and cybersecurity -- we show that Spearman rank correlation $ρ$ between simple-average rankings and ground-truth rankings degrades from $ρ= 1.000$ at 100% coverage to $ρ= 0.809$ at 67% coverage with high difficulty heterogeneity (mean over 20 seeds). A standard two-parameter logistic (2PL) Item Response Theory (IRT) model maintains $ρ\geq 0.996$ across all conditions. A 150-condition grid sweep over sparsity $S \in [0, 0.70]$ and difficulty gap $D \in [0.5, 5.0]$ confirms that ranking error forms a failure surface with a strong $S \times D$ interaction ($γ_3 = +0.20$, $t = 13.05$), while IRT maintains $ρ\geq 0.993$ throughout. We discuss implications for Physical AI benchmarking, where evaluation matrices are often incomplete and difficulty gaps are extreme.

Deep learning and large public datasets have recently catalyzed the proliferation of AI models for processing brain recordings. However, systematically evaluating these models remains a challenge: not only do the preprocessing pipelines, training and finetuning approaches largely vary across studies, but their downstream evaluation is often limited to small sets of tasks and/or datasets. Here, we present NeuralBench: a unified framework for benchmarking AI models of brain activity. We accompany this framework with NeuralBench-EEG v1.0 -- a large EEG benchmark that includes 36 electroencephalography (EEG) tasks and 14 deep learning architectures, and is evaluated on 94 datasets accessed through a standardized interface. This first EEG-focused release already highlights two main findings. First, current foundation models only marginally outperform task-specific models. Second, a large set of tasks (e.g. cognitive decoding, clinical predictions) remain highly challenging, even for the best models. Critically, NeuralBench is designed for the integration of new tasks, datasets, models, and neuroimaging modalities, as illustrated by preliminary extensions to MEG and fMRI datasets and models. Through this white paper, we invite the community to expand this open-source framework and work together toward a unified benchmarking standard for neuroimaging models.

Deploying massive large language models (LLMs) as continuous cognitive engines for robotics is bottlenecked by the time-to-first-token (TTFT) latency required to process extensive state histories. Existing solutions like RAG or sliding windows compromise global context or incur prohibitive re-computation costs. We formalize the optimal task structure for minimizing latency and theoretically prove that prefix stability, incremental extensibility, and asynchronous state reconciliation are necessary conditions for real-time performance. Building on these proofs, we introduce the Cached State Representation (CSR) framework as the practical instantiation of these properties, ensuring optimal KV-cache reuse. To sustain these properties over infinite horizons, we further propose an Asynchronous State Reconciliation (ASR) algorithm that offloads state memory eviction to a parallel computational resource to eliminate latency spikes. On a physical robot wirelessly connected to an on-premise GPU server, CSR achieves a 26-fold latency reduction (14.67s to 0.56s) for 120K token contexts with a 235B parameter model compared to a standard baseline. On an embodied AI benchmark, we achieve SOTA recall (0.836 vs. 0.459) while maintaining RAG-level latency. ASR is validated to sustain bounded, spike-free TTFT over 10 eviction cycles in continuous real-world operation. Together, CSR and ASR enable massive LLMs to function as continuously operating, high-frequency (> 2 Hz) embodied policies.

Public inference benchmarks compare AI systems at the model and provider level, but the unit at which deployment decisions are actually made is the endpoint: the (provider, model, stock-keeping-unit) tuple at which a specific quantization, decoding strategy, region, and serving stack is exposed. We introduce TokenArena, a continuous benchmark that measures inference at endpoint granularity along five core axes (output speed, time to first token, workload-blended price, effective context, and quality on the live endpoint) and synthesizes them, together with a modeled energy estimate, into three headline composites: joules per correct answer, dollars per correct answer, and endpoint fidelity (output-distribution similarity to a first-party reference). The framework's novelty is empirical and methodological. Across 78 endpoints serving 12 model families, the same model on different endpoints differs in mean accuracy by up to 12.5 points on math and code, in fingerprint similarity to first party by up to 12 points, in tail latency by an order of magnitude, and in modeled joules per correct answer by a factor of 6.2. We further show that workload-aware blended pricing reorders the leaderboard substantially: 7 of 10 top-ranked endpoints under the chat preset (3:1 input:output) fall out of the top 10 under the retrieval-augmented preset (20:1), and the reasoning preset (1:5) elevates frontier closed models that the chat preset penalizes on price. We release the framework, schema, probe and eval harness, and a v1.0 leaderboard snapshot under CC BY 4.0. TokenArena is a methodology, not a single ranking; we publish full provenance and limitations and welcome external replication.

Generative AI is being increasingly integrated into web search for the convenience it provides users. In this work, we aim to understand how generative AI disrupts web search by retrieving and presenting the information and sources differently from traditional search engines. We introduce a public benchmark dataset of 11,500 user queries to support our study and future research of generative search. We compare the search results returned by Google's search engine, the accompanying AI Overview (AIO), and Gemini Flash 2.5 for each query. We have made several key findings. First, we find that for 51.5% of representative, real-user queries, AIOs are generated, and are displayed above the organic search results. Controversial questions frequently result in an AIO. Second, we show that the retrieved sources are substantially different for each search engine (<0.2 average Jaccard similarity). Traditional Google search is significantly more likely to retrieve information from popular or institutional websites in government or education, while generative search engines are significantly more likely to retrieve Google-owned content. Third, we observe that websites that block Google's AI crawler are significantly less likely to be retrieved by AIOs, despite having access to the content. Finally, AIOs are less consistent when processing two runs of the same query, and are less robust to minor query edits. Our findings have important implications for understanding how generative search impacts website visibility, the effectiveness of generative engine optimization techniques, and the information users receive. We call for revenue frameworks to foster a sustainable and mutually beneficial ecosystem for publishers and generative search providers.

Automated train operation on existing railway infrastructure requires robust camera-based perception, yet the railway domain lacks public benchmark suites with standardized evaluation protocols that would enable reproducible comparison of approaches. We present RAIL-BENCH, the first perception benchmark suite for the railway domain. It comprises five challenges - rail track detection, object detection, vegetation segmentation, multi-object tracking, and monocular visual odometry - each tailored to the specific characteristics of railway environments. RAIL-BENCH provides curated training and test datasets drawn from diverse real-world scenarios, evaluation metrics, and public scoreboards (https://www.mrt.kit.edu/railbench). For the rail track detection challenge we introduce LineAP, a novel segment-based average precision metric that evaluates the geometric accuracy of polyline predictions independently of instance-level grouping, addressing key limitations of existing line detection metrics.

Visual search in 3D environments requires embodied agents to actively explore their surroundings and acquire task-relevant evidence. However, existing visual search and embodied AI benchmarks, including EQA, typically rely on static observations or constrained egocentric motion, and thus do not explicitly evaluate fine-grained viewpoint-dependent phenomena that arise under unrestricted 5-DoF viewpoint control in real-world 3D environments, such as visibility changes caused by vertical viewpoint shifts, revealing contents inside containers, and disambiguating object attributes that are only observable from specific angles. To address this limitation, we introduce {E3VS-Bench}, a benchmark for embodied 3D visual search where agents must control their viewpoints in 5-DoF to gather viewpoint-dependent evidence for question answering. E3VS-Bench consists of 99 high-fidelity 3D scenes reconstructed using 3D Gaussian Splatting and 2,014 question-driven episodes. 3D Gaussian Splatting enables photorealistic free-viewpoint rendering that preserves fine-grained visual details (e.g., small text and subtle attributes) often degraded in mesh-based simulators, thereby allowing the construction of questions that cannot be answered from a single view and instead require active inspection across viewpoints in 5-DoF. We evaluate multiple state-of-the-art VLMs and compare their performance with humans. Despite strong 2D reasoning ability, all models exhibit a substantial gap from humans, highlighting limitations in active perception and coherent viewpoint planning specifically under full 5-DoF viewpoint changes.

Metacognition, the ability to monitor and regulate one's own reasoning, remains under-evaluated in AI benchmarking. We introduce MEDLEY-BENCH, a benchmark of behavioural metacognition that separates independent reasoning, private self-revision, and socially influenced revision under genuine inter-model disagreement. The benchmark evaluates 35 models from 12 families on 130 ambiguous instances across five domains and reports two complementary scores: the Medley Metacognition Score (MMS), a tier-based aggregate of reflective updating, social robustness, and epistemic articulation, and the Medley Ability Score (MAS), derived from four metacognitive sub-abilities. Results show a robust evaluation/control dissociation: evaluation ability increases with model size within families, whereas control does not. In a follow-up progressive adversarial analysis of 11 models, we observed two behavioural profiles, i.e., models that revise primarily in response to argument quality and models that track consensus statistics. Under within-model relative profiling (ipsative scoring), evaluation was the weakest relative ability in all 35 models, indicating a systematic knowing/doing gap. Smaller and cheaper models often matched or outperformed larger counterparts, suggesting that metacognitive competence is not simply a function of scale. These findings position MEDLEY-BENCH as a tool for measuring belief revision under social pressure and suggest that future training should reward calibrated, proportional updating rather than output quality alone.

Artificial intelligence benchmarks are an important mechanism for measuring model progress and guiding deployment decisions. However, benchmarks quickly "saturate", making it difficult to differentiate models and diminishing their long-term value. In this study, we define benchmark saturation and analyze it across 60 language model benchmarks using 14 properties that relate to saturation. We find that nearly half of the our benchmarks exhibit saturation, with rates increasing with age. Further, we find that resilience to saturation is impacted by expert-curation, not by public test data. Our results suggest that design choices can extend benchmark longevity and inform more durable evaluation approaches.

Evaluating the real-world capabilities of AI systems requires grounding benchmark performance in human-interpretable measures of task difficulty. Existing approaches that rely on direct human task completion time annotations are costly, noisy, and difficult to scale across benchmarks. In this work, we propose BRIDGE, a unified psychometric framework that learns a latent difficulty scale from model responses and anchors it to human task completion time. Using a two-parameter logistic Item Response Theory model, we jointly estimate latent task difficulty and model capability from model performance data across multiple benchmarks. We demonstrate that latent task difficulty varies linearly with the logarithm of human completion time, allowing human task completion time to be inferred for new benchmarks from model performance alone. Leveraging this alignment, we forecast frontier model capabilities in terms of human task length and independently reproduce METR's exponential scaling results, with the 50% solvable task horizon doubling approximately every 6 months.

Cooperative AI agents are evaluated against other AIs, yet human cooperation relies on implicit conventions -- shared protocols for reading meaning beyond the literal message -- which AI-AI benchmarks may not capture. We propose the convention gap, the difference between the failure probability predicted from the literal content of communication and the observed failure rate, as a metric of implicit communication. In the card game Hanabi, the finite deck and deterministic hint constraints make this posterior exactly computable. We replayed about 101,000 play actions from three public datasets of human-human (an online Hanabi platform), AI-AI (HOAD), and human-AI (HanabiData) games. The gap was +26.2 percentage points (pp) in human pairs, -0.7 pp in AI pairs, and +16.4 pp in human-AI pairs, and was concentrated on plays of cards that had received no hints (+46 pp in human pairs). Within human-AI play, the literal information available to humans was similar across the three AI partners (mean predicted failure 38-41%), but human failure rates ranged from 14.4% to 34.4% and the gap from +24.1 to +6.2 pp; the partner eliciting the largest gap produced the fewest human failures. Game score carried different information: it depended on each corpus's roster composition, whereas the gap separated human from AI play at the agent level. As a known-answer check, Off-Belief Learning agents, whose convention content is controlled by construction, gave a gap of +1.6 pp at the convention-free level, rising monotonically to +21.7 pp. These results suggest that convention compatibility, rather than AI-AI performance, may predict an AI's effectiveness with human partners.