alt Hacker NewsJust so everyone is aware of the "coincidences" that happen with this index:
- Two days ago AA announced their v5 Index which added a few new benchmarks and tweaked a few things.
- Today the newest model announced from a big lab tops the charts.
I'm not saying that AA is definitely taking money from the big labs and changing the benchmark to make the labs' new models look better, but it kind of looks that way. This pattern of behavior has happened before, where the index gets tweaked right around when a new model comes out, and the new model is on top. AA does not, AFAIK, provide a way to see how the new models would have scored under the older index versions. You could probably calculate it yourself, but I'm not going to do that much legwork just for an HN comment.
It's interesting because they publish the index methodology, so you can't really accuse them of not being transparent, but I don't really believe that the choices to update the index were completely independent of the model they happened to be evaluating at the time.
Related: The DXOMark camera scoring method also had similar behavior, where they would release new testing methodology right before flagship smartphones were released. Again, they are technically being transparent about the process, but it kind of smells like the "independent" testers may not be as independent as the average user would hope.
Replies
Yeah, it is very suspicious. Each time they update their ranking algorithm, the closed models from US labs jump up and any previously high ranking open model jumps down. It happened with MiMo, Kimi, GLM. All were right there amongst the very top, and each time that happened, AA followed quickly with an index update that shunted them dramatically lower.
Check out vals.ai for an alternative. Not sure how independent they really are either, but it's at least good for a cross reference.
I don't understand this conspiracy/suspicion vibe around AI benchmarks -- the best benchmarks get maxed quickly in today's world, especially if the datasets are open. We're in a situation where the AA's of the world show 0-1 point difference between models, so by definition they are NOT good discriminators. These tests NEED improvement.
Do they work with frontier labs? Probably. They should work with them at least a little so that we can get an independent read on the model quality. Do they inject new tests that specifically favor one particular lab? Clearly no, as different labs have moved up over time. Do they inject new tests that help to provide some separation on scoring? God, I hope so.
Nota bene, another change they announced was dramatically increasing the amount of held back test data; this would be a simple explanation for seeing open weights models, all of which are known to distill from frontier labs and benchmarks, drop in the rankings.
Have you considered the other direction? They test a new model, and realize their current index is broken, so they improve it?
At the previous iterations they were accused of favoring OpenAI. Now they are accused of favoring Google.
It's odd because I wonder if anybody actually cares about such scores. It's not like millions of end users look at the score and use it to make a decision what to buy. Subscriptions can easiliy be canceled and people anyway use the models they "feel" work best for them. Hardly anybody I know uses an even remotely scientific method to evaluate model performance. It's mostly vibes with a little bit of (mostly flawed) A/B testing sprinkled in.
So ... why bother to cheat?
My paranoid impression was more that the updating and addition of tests — obviously essential in this game — was delayed to provide advertisement for Kimi K3.1. The same happened for K3 — and this is why it was famous — but its position had collapsed by the time of 3.1
I had a look at the changes and the biggest impact seems to be from adding Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 and having it contribute 15% to the overall score.
Example problems are:
- https://hub.harborframework.com/tasks/terminal-bench-science...
- https://hub.harborframework.com/tasks/terminal-bench-science...
I have no doubt that these are very relevant task for people in those respective fields, but I suspect they have next to no relevance to some 99.9% of model users. Hence why especially smaller labs with smaller models didn't really train for such use cases and you can see it.
Personally, it's not something that matters at all to me, as I don't work in cheminformatics or bioinformatics.
This is also arguably more of a test of a model's knowledge base than reasoning ability.
But most importantly, there is also the question to which extent the aggregate score then remains a meaningful result when you mix up too many too disparate benchmarks.
The coding agents subindex, in contrast, looks at least superficially plausible [1].
[1] https://artificialanalysis.ai/agents/coding-agents#coding-ag...