One Capability or Many? Testing the Economic Validity of Frontier AI Evaluation
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:One Capability or Many? Testing the Economic Validity of Frontier AI Evaluation
Abstract:Frontier-model leaderboards now rank systems based on economic benchmarks, tests of how well models carry out professional tasks from software engineering to banking workflows, and those rankings inform what organisations buy, what regulators scrutinise, and expectations of how work will change. Whether such benchmarks measure a capability distinct from general test-taking, or re-express the one axis along which every benchmark rises as models improve, is a question of construct validity that has not yet been studied. We test it on a hash-pinned leaderboard snapshot of 421 model configurations across twelve benchmarks, four of them economic, treating benchmarks as items and models as respondents in a latent-variable model with four hypotheses and their thresholds fixed before analysis. A single factor explains 74.5% of common variance and tracks model release date (R^2 = 0.505), so the leading axis of capability is substantially a time trend; where prior work controls for scale, compute adds little once date is removed. Removing the date trend lowers that share by 14.9 points, and by 24.1 with one row per base model. Under the dimensionality rule fixed in advance the economic benchmarks form no distinct factor, yet a leave-one-benchmark-out test with factors re-estimated inside every fold shows that a multi-factor representation predicts held-out economic scores better than a single general index (pooled Delta-MSE 0.037, 95% bootstrap interval [0.019, 0.055]). Economic benchmarks therefore add incremental predictive information to a largely date-driven general factor, and the evidence does not support treating them as a distinct latent capability. Leaderboards remain a sound guide to overall progress, but most of the gap between models released months apart is calendar, so a small gap between contemporaneous models should be date-adjusted before being read as a capability difference.
| Comments: | 25 pages, 11 figures. Analysis plan deposited at this https URL (retrospective deposit; see the note there). Code and data: this https URL |
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Software Engineering (cs.SE) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2608.29420 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2608.29420v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.29420
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Current browse context:
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
Algebraic Integer Quantization for Machine Learning Applications
Oct 12
-
CircuitTree: Composing Circuits into A Syllable Transcriber
Oct 12
-
Behind-the-Meter Photovoltaic Visibility from Net Smart Meters: Deployment Regimes and Operational Insights
Oct 12
-
GlucoPRISM: Protocol-Supervised Pretraining for Cross-Cohort Glucose Transfer
Oct 12
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.