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.

Teaching Values to Machines: Simulating Human-Like Behavior in LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate a remarkable capacity to adopt different personas and roles; however, it remains unclear whether they can manifest behavior that adheres to a coherent, human-like value structure. In this work, we draw on established psychological value theory to induce human-like values in LLMs and assess their alignment with patterns observed in human studies. Using validated psychological questionnaires, we conduct large-scale experiments -- over 5 million questions -- to evaluate value structures and value-behavior relationships in leading LLMs and compare them to humans. Our findings reveal strong agreement between value-prompted LLMs and humans across both dimensions. Moreover, incorporating human value distributions enhances population-level simulations with value-induced LLMs. These findings highlight the potential of value-induced LLMs as effective, psychologically grounded tools for simulating human behavior.

A Matter of TASTE: Improving Coverage and Difficulty of Agent Benchmarks

As agent capabilities advance, existing benchmarks, such as $τ^2$-Bench, are becoming increasingly saturated. Yet constructing new benchmark tasks remains complex, costly, and labor-intensive. Moreover, the standard approach, in which scenarios are first written in natural language and then mapped to tool sequences, captures only a narrow subset of the tool-use patterns agents exercise. In this paper, we address these problems by reversing the task construction process. We propose TASTE: Task Synthesis from Tool Sequence Evolution, an automatic method that generates challenging tasks with broader tool-use coverage. TASTE utilizes an Adaptive Contrastive $n$-gram model trained on LLM-judged validity signals. This enables sampling valid tool sequences that cover a vast range of tool combinations. TASTE then selects representative sequences from the pool via clustering, instantiates them into complete benchmark tasks, and refines them through iterative difficulty evolution. Using TASTE, we construct $τ^c$-Bench, a challenging extension of the three domains of $τ^2$-Bench. We evaluate $11$ agent/user LLM pairs and find that models nearly saturating $τ^2$-Bench suffer severe performance drops on our tasks (e.g., Gemini-3-Flash falls from $0.82\!-\!0.94$ to $0.28\!-\!0.61$). Beyond increasing difficulty, our generated tasks more than double the number of unique tool combinations agents must execute. Our results suggest high scores on existing benchmarks often reflect saturation rather than robust task-solving ability. By automating the generation of difficult, high-coverage benchmarks, TASTE enables continuous, scalable evaluation of future agents.

Agentic CLEAR: Automating Multi-Level Evaluation of LLM Agents

Agentic systems are becoming more capable: agents define strategies, take actions, and interact with different environments. This autonomy poses serious challenges for overseeing and assessing agent behavior. Most current tools are limited, focusing on observability with basic evaluation capabilities or imposing static, hand-crafted error taxonomies that cannot adapt to new domains. To address this gap, we present Agentic CLEAR, an automatic, dynamic, and easy-to-use evaluation framework. It produces textual insights into the agent behavior on three levels of granularity: system, trace, and node. Agentic CLEAR operates above the observability layer, enabling seamless integration and featuring an intuitive UI that makes agent evaluation highly accessible. In our experiments on four benchmarks, seven agentic settings, and tens of thousands of LLM calls, we show that Agentic CLEAR produces high-quality, data-driven, insightful feedback. Our analysis shows strong alignment with human-annotated errors and the ability to predict task success rate.

Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?

Deep research agents increasingly automate complex information-seeking tasks, producing evidence-grounded reports via multi-step reasoning, tool use, and synthesis. Their growing role demands scalable, reliable evaluation, positioning LLM-as-judge as a supervision paradigm for assessing factual accuracy, evidence use, and reasoning quality. Yet the reliability of these judges for deep research agents remains poorly understood, posing a critical meta-evaluation problem: before deploying LLM judges to supervise research agents, we must first evaluate the judges themselves. Existing meta-evaluations fall short in two ways: (1) reliance on coarse, subjective human-preference agreement; (2) focus on instruction-following or verifiable tasks, leaving open-ended agent executions unexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce REFLECT (REliable Fine-grained LLM judge Evaluation via Controlled inTervention), a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments. REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions on quality-screened agent execution traces. This yields verifiable, comprehensive, and fine-grained instances for validating the judge models. Our experiments show that current LLM judges remain unreliable: even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures, with especially poor performance on evidence verification. Together, our taxonomy and findings expose systematic judge limitations, reveal tradeoffs in cost and reliability, and offer actionable guidance for building more reliable evaluation pipelines for deep research agents.

Growing Pains: Extensible and Efficient LLM Benchmarking Via Fixed Parameter Calibration

The rapid release of both language models and benchmarks makes it increasingly costly to evaluate every model on every dataset. In practice, models are often evaluated on different samples, making scores difficult to compare across studies. To address this, we propose a framework based on multidimensional Item Response Theory (IRT) that uses anchor items to calibrate new benchmarks to the evaluation suite while holding previously calibrated item parameters fixed. Our approach supports a realistic evaluation setting in which datasets are introduced over time and models are evaluated only on the datasets available at the time of evaluation, while a fixed anchor set for each dataset is used so that results from different evaluation periods can be compared directly. In large-scale experiments on more than $400$ models, our framework predicts full-evaluation performance within 2-3 percentage points using only $100$ anchor questions per dataset, with Spearman $ρ\geq 0.9$ for ranking preservation, showing that it is possible to extend benchmark suites over time while preserving score comparability, at a constant evaluation cost per new dataset. Code available at https://github.com/eliyahabba/growing-pains

Mediocrity is the key for LLM as a Judge Anchor Selection

The ``LLM-as-a-judge'' paradigm has become a standard method for evaluating open-ended generation. To address the quadratic scalability costs of pairwise comparisons, popular benchmarks like Arena-Hard and AlpacaEval compare all models against a single anchor. However, despite its widespread use, the impact of anchor selection on the reliability of the results remains largely unexplored. In this work, we systematically investigate the effect of anchor selection by evaluating 22 different anchors on the Arena-Hard-v2.0 dataset. We find that the choice of anchor is critical: a poor anchor can dramatically reduce correlation with human rankings. We identify that common anchor choices (best-performing and worst-performing models) make poor anchors. Because these extreme anchors are consistently better or worse than all other models, they are seldom indicative of the relative ranking of the models. We further quantify the effect size of anchor selection, showing it is comparable to the selection of a judge model. We conclude with actionable recommendations. First, we conduct a power analysis, and compute sufficient benchmark sizes for anchor-based evaluation, finding that standard benchmark sizes are insufficient for pairwise evaluation and fail to distinguish between competitive models reliably. Second, we provide guidelines for selecting informative anchors to ensure reliable and efficient evaluation practices.

CUBE: A Standard for Unifying Agent Benchmarks

The proliferation of agent benchmarks has created critical fragmentation that threatens research productivity. Each new benchmark requires substantial custom integration, creating an "integration tax" that limits comprehensive evaluation. We propose CUBE (Common Unified Benchmark Environments), a universal protocol standard built on MCP and Gym that allows benchmarks to be wrapped once and used everywhere. By separating task, benchmark, package, and registry concerns into distinct API layers, CUBE enables any compliant platform to access any compliant benchmark for evaluation, RL training, or data generation without custom integration. We call on the community to contribute to the development of this standard before platform-specific implementations deepen fragmentation as benchmark production accelerates through 2026.

General Agent Evaluation

The promise of general-purpose agents - systems that perform tasks in unfamiliar environments without domain-specific engineering - remains largely unrealized. Existing agents are predominantly specialized, and while emerging implementations like OpenAI SDK Agent and Claude Code hint at broader capabilities, no systematic evaluation of their general performance has been pursued. Current agentic benchmarks assume domain-specific integration, encoding task information in ways that preclude fair evaluation of general agents. This paper frames general-agent evaluation as a first-class research objective. We propose conceptual principles for such evaluation, a Unified Protocol enabling agent-benchmark integration, and Exgentic - a practical framework for general agent evaluation. We benchmark five prominent agent implementations across six environments as the first Open General Agent Leaderboard. Our experiments show that general agents generalize across diverse environments, achieving performance comparable to domain-specific agents without any environment-specific tuning. We release our evaluation protocol, framework, and leaderboard to establish a foundation for systematic research on general-purpose agents.