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.

FedMental: Evaluating Federated Learning for Mental Health Detection from Social Media Data

Social media text data are often used to train Machine Learning (ML) models to identify users exhibiting high-risk mental health behaviors. However, sharing this sensitive data poses privacy risks and limits the growth of benchmark datasets. We comprehensively evaluate whether privacy-preserving ML techniques can enable safer data sharing while preserving performance. Specifically, we apply federated learning (FL) and Differentially Private FL for two widely-studied mental health prediction tasks: depression detection on X (Twitter) and suicide crisis detection on Reddit. We simulate realistic data-sharing scenarios by treating each user as a client in a non-IID setting, evaluating across different client fractions, aggregation strategies, and privacy budgets. While FL achieves comparable performance to centralized training (centralized F1 = 85.63; best FL model F1 = 83.16) on depression identification, we find that Differentially Private FL has a large performance-privacy trade-off (up to F1 = 27.01 drop) even with low levels of noise (epsilon = 50). This is due to the distortion of highly informative yet sparse mental health linguistic markers related to mental health, like health topics and emotion words. This research empirically demonstrates the potential and limitations of current privacy preservation techniques for mental health inference tasks.

Unrequited Emotions: Investigating the Gaps in Motivation and Practice in Speech Emotion Recognition Research

Critical analyses of emotion recognition technology have raised ethical concerns around task validity and potential downstream impacts, urging researchers to ensure alignment between their stated motivations and practice. However, these discussions have not adequately influenced or drawn from research on speech emotion recognition (SER). We address this gap by conducting a systematic survey of SER research to uncover what stated motivations drive this work and if they align with the datasets and emotions studied. We find that while SER research identifies appealing goals, such as well-situated voice-activated systems or healthcare applications, commonly-used datasets do not reflect these proposed deployment contexts, thus presenting a gap between motivations and research practices. We argue that such gaps engender ethical concerns, and that SER research should reassert itself with concrete use-cases to prevent misinterpretations, misuse, and downstream harms.

Aligning Stuttered-Speech Research with End-User Needs: Scoping Review, Survey, and Guidelines

Atypical speech is receiving greater attention in speech technology research, but much of this work unfolds with limited interdisciplinary dialogue. For stuttered speech in particular, it is widely recognised that current speech recognition systems fall short in practice, and current evaluation methods and research priorities are not systematically grounded in end-user experiences and needs. In this work, we analyse these gaps through 1) a scoping review of papers that deal with stuttered speech and 2) a survey of 70 stakeholders, including adults who stutter and speech-language pathologists. By analysing these two perspectives, we propose a taxonomy of stuttered-speech research, identify where current research directions diverge from the needs articulated by stakeholders, and conclude by outlining concrete guidelines and directions towards addressing the real needs of the stuttering community.

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 Gets Heard? Rethinking Fairness in AI for Music Systems

In recent years, the music research community has examined risks of AI models for music, with generative AI models in particular, raised concerns about copyright, deepfakes, and transparency. In our work, we raise concerns about cultural and genre biases in AI for music systems (music-AI systems) which affect stakeholders including creators, distributors, and listeners shaping representation in AI for music. These biases can misrepresent marginalized traditions, especially from the Global South, producing inauthentic outputs (e.g., distorted ragas) that reduces creators' trust on these systems. Such harms risk reinforcing biases, limiting creativity, and contributing to cultural erasure. To address this, we offer recommendations at dataset, model and interface level in music-AI systems.

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.

Code-Switching in End-to-End Automatic Speech Recognition: A Systematic Literature Review

Motivated by a growing research interest into automatic speech recognition (ASR), and the growing body of work for languages in which code-switching (CS) often occurs, we present a systematic literature review of code-switching in end-to-end ASR models. We collect and manually annotate papers published in peer reviewed venues. We document the languages considered, datasets, metrics, model choices, and performance, and present a discussion of challenges in end-to-end ASR for code-switching. Our analysis thus provides insights on current research efforts and available resources as well as opportunities and gaps to guide future research.

IYKYK: Using language models to decode extremist cryptolects

Extremist groups develop complex in-group language, also referred to as cryptolects, to exclude or mislead outsiders. We investigate the ability of current language technologies to detect and interpret the cryptolects of two online extremist platforms. Evaluating eight models across six tasks, our results indicate that general purpose LLMs cannot consistently detect or decode extremist language. However, performance can be significantly improved by domain adaptation and specialised prompting techniques. These results provide important insights to inform the development and deployment of automated moderation technologies. We further develop and release novel labelled and unlabelled datasets, including 19.4M posts from extremist platforms and lexicons validated by human experts.