Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
ETH
Mila
MIT CSAIL
Stanford HAIAISIAmherst CollegeDHBW StuttgartEdinburghEleutherAIEvals ConsensusGeorgetownGeorgia TechHarvardHuggingFaceHUJIIBM ResearchIndependentIOL.Learn & Zuse Institute BerlinIowa StateKUMcGillNotre DameOxfordQMULSimulaSyntony ResearchTechnionTrustibleTU DarmstadtTU MunichUChicagoUniversity of NebraskaJun 8, 2026arXiv:2606.09809This paper introduces Evaluation Cards, an operational reporting layer designed to unify and enhance the interpretability of AI evaluation results across various sources. By deriving a comprehensive reporting schema from a structured review of literature and stakeholder interviews, the authors implement key interpretive signals that cater to both research and non-research audiences. The deployment of this tool across thousands of models and benchmarks reveals significant gaps in existing reporting practices, highlighting the need for standardized evaluation metrics in AI research.
Systematic gaps in AI evaluation reporting are exposed, revealing inconsistencies that hinder reliable comparisons across thousands of models and benchmarks.
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 , 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 across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.
