Identical replays of financial AI agents often reproduce the same decision while varying the tool-call path, in one prospective study 94-95% decision agreement versus 67-69% exact tool-path agreement.
Every Eval Ever: A Unifying Schema and Community Repository for AI Evaluation Results
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
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.
fields
cs.AI 1years
2026 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
DFAH-Bench: Benchmarking Observable Agent Instability in Financial Decision-Making
Identical replays of financial AI agents often reproduce the same decision while varying the tool-call path, in one prospective study 94-95% decision agreement versus 67-69% exact tool-path agreement.