EvalEval Coalition
82 posts

EvalEval Coalition
@evaluatingevals
We are a researcher community developing scientifically grounded research outputs and robust deployment infrastructure for broader impact evaluations.



AI evaluation is becoming its own compute bottleneck. We often talk about the cost of training frontier models, but the cost of evaluating them is starting to matter just as much, especially for agents, scientific ML systems, and training-in-the-loop benchmarks. In our new Evaluating Evaluations post, we look at how evals are crossing a threshold where cost changes who can participate. The Holistic Agent Leaderboard spent about $40K on 21,730 agent rollouts across 9 models and 9 benchmarks. A single GAIA run on a frontier model can cost $2,829 before caching. And once you care about reliability, repeated runs can multiply these costs many times over. This creates a real accountability problem. If only large labs can afford statistically credible evals, independent researchers, auditors, journalists, and public-interest organizations are left with partial visibility into frontier systems. The core issue is that benchmark design is changing. Static benchmarks could often be compressed aggressively while preserving rankings. Agent benchmarks are noisier and scaffold-sensitive. Training-in-the-loop benchmarks are expensive by construction. As evals move closer to real work, they also become harder to make cheap. Some takeaways: → Leaderboards should report cost alongside accuracy. → Reliability should not be treated as optional. → We need reusable eval artifacts! Shared documentation formats, such as Every Eval Ever, can help the field stop paying repeatedly for the same measurements. Read the full post: evalevalai.com/research/2026/… Thanks for the insights @LChoshen , Yifan Mai, and @cgeorgiaw🤗








