Machine learning research has long focused on models rather than datasets, and prominent datasets are used for common ML tasks without regard to the breadth, difficulty, and faithfulness of the underlying problems. Neglecting the fundamental importance of data has given rise to inaccuracy, bias, and fragility in real-world applications, and research is hindered by saturation across existing dataset benchmarks.

The MineRL BASALT competition has served to catalyze advances in learning from human feedback through four hard-to-specify tasks in Minecraft, such as create and photograph a waterfall. Given the completion of two years of BASALT competitions, we offer to the community a formalized benchmark through the BASALT Evaluation and Demonstrations Dataset (BEDD), which serves as a resource for algorithm development and performance assessment. BEDD consists of a collection of 26 million image-action pairs from nearly 14,000 videos of human players completing the BASALT tasks in Minecraft. It also includes over 3,000 dense pairwise human evaluations of human and algorithmic agents. These comparisons serve as a fixed, preliminary leaderboard for evaluating newly-developed algorithms. To enable this comparison, we present a streamlined codebase for benchmarking new algorithms against the leaderboard. In addition to presenting these datasets, we conduct a detailed analysis of the data from both datasets to guide algorithm development and evaluation.

We introduce the first version of the AI Consumer Index (ACE), a benchmark for assessing whether frontier AI models can perform everyday consumer tasks. ACE contains a hidden heldout set of 400 test cases, split across four consumer activities: shopping, food, gaming, and DIY. We are also open sourcing 80 cases as a devset with a CC-BY license. For the ACE leaderboard we evaluated 10 frontier models (with websearch turned on) using a novel grading methodology that dynamically checks whether relevant parts of the response are grounded in the retrieved web sources. GPT 5 (Thinking = High) is the top-performing model, scoring 56.1%, followed by o3 Pro (Thinking = On) at 55.2% and GPT 5.1 (Thinking = High) at 55.1%. Model scores differ across domains, and in Shopping the top model scores under 50\%. We find that models are prone to hallucinating key information, such as prices. ACE shows a substantial gap between the performance of even the best models and consumers' AI needs.

Machine learning (ML) offers a powerful path toward discovering sustainable polymer materials, but progress has been limited by the lack of large, high-quality, and openly accessible polymer datasets. The Open Polymer Challenge (OPC) addresses this gap by releasing the first community-developed benchmark for polymer informatics, featuring a dataset with 10K polymers and 5 properties: thermal conductivity, radius of gyration, density, fractional free volume, and glass transition temperature. The challenge centers on multi-task polymer property prediction, a core step in virtual screening pipelines for materials discovery. Participants developed models under realistic constraints that include small data, label imbalance, and heterogeneous simulation sources, using techniques such as feature-based augmentation, transfer learning, self-supervised pretraining, and targeted ensemble strategies. The competition also revealed important lessons about data preparation, distribution shifts, and cross-group simulation consistency, informing best practices for future large-scale polymer datasets. The resulting models, analysis, and released data create a new foundation for molecular AI in polymer science and are expected to accelerate the development of sustainable and energy-efficient materials. Along with the competition, we release the test dataset at https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/alexliu99/neurips-open-polymer-prediction-2025-test-data. We also release the data generation pipeline at https://github.com/sobinalosious/ADEPT, which simulates more than 25 properties, including thermal conductivity, radius of gyration, and density.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become one of the most transformative tools across many applications, as they have significantly boosted productivity and achieved impressive results in various domains such as finance, healthcare, education, telecommunications, and law, among others. Typically, state-of-the-art (SOTA) foundation models are developed by large corporations based on large data collections and substantial computational and financial resources required to pretrain such models from scratch. These foundation models then serve as the basis for further development and domain adaptation for specific use cases or tasks. However, given the dynamic and fast-paced nature of launching new foundation models, the process of selecting the most suitable model for a particular use case, application, or domain becomes increasingly complex. We argue that there are two main dimensions that need to be taken into consideration when selecting a model for further training: a qualitative dimension (which model is best suited for a task based on information, for instance, taken from model cards) and a quantitative dimension (which is the best performing model). The quantitative performance of models is assessed through leaderboards, which rank models based on standardized benchmarks and provide a consistent framework for comparing different LLMs. In this work, we address the analysis of the quantitative dimension by exploring the current leaderboards and benchmarks. To illustrate this analysis, we focus on the medical domain as a case study, demonstrating the evolution, current landscape, and practical significance of this quantitative evaluation dimension. Finally, we propose a Model Selection Methodology (MSM), a systematic approach designed to guide the navigation, prioritization, and selection of the model that best aligns with a given use case.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have transformed image captioning, shifting from concise captions to detailed descriptions. We introduce LOTUS, a leaderboard for evaluating detailed captions, addressing three main gaps in existing evaluations: lack of standardized criteria, bias-aware assessments, and user preference considerations. LOTUS comprehensively evaluates various aspects, including caption quality (e.g., alignment, descriptiveness), risks (\eg, hallucination), and societal biases (e.g., gender bias) while enabling preference-oriented evaluations by tailoring criteria to diverse user preferences. Our analysis of recent LVLMs reveals no single model excels across all criteria, while correlations emerge between caption detail and bias risks. Preference-oriented evaluations demonstrate that optimal model selection depends on user priorities.

Today's LLM ecosystem comprises a wide spectrum of models that differ in size, capability, and cost. No single model is optimal for all scenarios; hence, LLM routers have become essential for selecting the most appropriate model under varying circumstances. However, the rapid emergence of various routers makes choosing the right one increasingly challenging. To address this problem, we need a comprehensive router comparison and a standardized leaderboard, similar to those available for models. In this work, we introduce RouterArena, the first open platform enabling comprehensive comparison of LLM routers. RouterArena has (1) a principally constructed dataset with broad knowledge domain coverage, (2) distinguishable difficulty levels for each domain, (3) an extensive list of evaluation metrics, and (4) an automated framework for leaderboard updates. Leveraging our framework, we have produced the initial leaderboard with detailed metrics comparison as shown in Figure 1. Our framework for evaluating new routers is on https://github.com/RouteWorks/RouterArena. Our leaderboard is on https://routeworks.github.io/.

An important task in machine learning (ML) research is comparing prior work, which is often performed via ML leaderboards: a tabular overview of experiments with comparable conditions (e.g., same task, dataset, and metric). However, the growing volume of literature creates challenges in creating and maintaining these leaderboards. To ease this burden, researchers have developed methods to extract leaderboard entries from research papers for automated leaderboard curation. Yet, prior work varies in problem framing, complicating comparisons and limiting real-world applicability. In this position paper, we present the first overview of Automatic Leaderboard Generation (ALG) research, identifying fundamental differences in assumptions, scope, and output formats. We propose an ALG unified conceptual framework to standardise how the ALG task is defined. We offer ALG benchmarking guidelines, including recommendations for datasets and metrics that promote fair, reproducible evaluation. Lastly, we outline challenges and new directions for ALG, such as, advocating for broader coverage by including all reported results and richer metadata.

Since 2010, Kaggle has been a platform where data scientists from around the world come together to compete, collaborate, and push the boundaries of Data Science. Over these 15 years, it has grown from a purely competition-focused site into a broader ecosystem with forums, notebooks, models, datasets, and more. With the release of the Kaggle Meta Code and Kaggle Meta Datasets, we now have a unique opportunity to explore these competitions, technologies, and real-world applications of Machine Learning and AI. And so in this study, we take a closer look at 15 years of data science on Kaggle - through metadata, shared code, community discussions, and the competitions themselves. We explore Kaggle's growth, its impact on the data science community, uncover hidden technological trends, analyze competition winners, how Kagglers approach problems in general, and more. We do this by analyzing millions of kernels and discussion threads to perform both longitudinal trend analysis and standard exploratory data analysis. Our findings show that Kaggle is a steadily growing platform with increasingly diverse use cases, and that Kagglers are quick to adapt to new trends and apply them to real-world challenges, while producing - on average - models with solid generalization capabilities. We also offer a snapshot of the platform as a whole, highlighting its history and technological evolution. Finally, this study is accompanied by a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVOV9bIUNrM) and a Kaggle write-up (https://kaggle.com/competitions/meta-kaggle-hackathon/writeups/kaggle-chronicles-15-years-of-competitions-communi) for your convenience.

With the rapid development of code LLMs, many popular evaluation benchmarks, such as HumanEval, DS-1000, and MBPP, have emerged to measure the performance of code LLMs with a particular focus on code generation tasks. However, they are insufficient to cover the full range of expected capabilities of code LLMs, which span beyond code generation to answering diverse coding-related questions.