Evaluator Bench
evaluator; distance from a lab: 1

MLCommons

Scorecard

Industry consortium producing the AILuminate safety benchmark.

Consortium, San Francisco, US. Benchmark or consortium; listed with commercial and first-party. Confidence med. Domains: benchmarks, assurance.

Conditional floor 8/8 evidenced · Retrieved & confirmed Scores by preset: Lab procurement –; Regulator or auditor –; Public trust –; Equal weights –. Weakest evidenced dimension: access depth (lab-granted) 0/4. At least one evidenced conflict dimension (funding, governance, personnel, role incompatibility, scope, publication) at 1: usable with conditions the card names.

The weighted numbers are hidden until you ask for them: two readers with different priorities see different numbers, and neither is the site's.

What would move the score. Published funding shares and a hazard suite the members do not see in advance.

Dissent, lower. Funding (F) at 1 could be 0. The consortium was convened by Google engineers, its president is a Google senior staff engineer, and Google is a founding participant; the benchmarked labs sit in the working group that writes the benchmark and pay the dues that fund it. Anchor 0 covers an organization controlled by a frontier developer; a member-governed body whose president draws a Google salary is arguably that.

Dissent, higher. Funding (F) at 1 could be 2. More than 125 members and affiliates pay dues, most of them chipmakers, universities and non-profits rather than frontier labs, and no member is documented above a trivial share. The AI Verify Foundation co-funded AILuminate. Lab dues beside a broad disclosed base is the anchor-2 picture of diversified revenue rather than lab revenue as the principal source.

Each value is the tightest admissible cap or, with no cap, the highest admissible floor, under RULES.md. The binding signal is highlighted. A dash means no admissible signal sets a bound under the Retrieved & confirmed policy.

Funding 1/4
Anchor 1: Material revenue or investment from evaluated labs or their investors.
evidence: tier 3 (self)
Capped at 1 by mlcommons.01 (F.5): Funded by member companies, including the labs whose models are benchmarked..
Curator: Anchor 1 on funding given the cited signals. Curator disclosure (2026-09-15): the curator holds small public-market shareholdings in Google and Meta. This evaluator has a confirmed ledger tie to Google (founding participation row T63; not a grant). Per the disclosure Rule, this assessment is flagged for public review: the rationale names the holding so readers can weigh it, and any reader can file a correction through the contribution path.
Governance 2/4
Anchor 2: For-profit or PBC with a published COI policy.
evidence: tier 1 (filing/index)
Capped at 2 by mlcommons.04 (G.4): Consortium governance by members..
Personnel 2/4
Anchor 2: Frequent two-way hiring; recusal on request.
evidence: tier 3 (self)
Capped at 2 by mlcommons.07 (P.4): Working groups staffed by member-company employees..
Access depth (lab-granted) 0/4
Anchor 0: Public API only.
evidence: tier 3 (self)
mechanism: lab-controlled
Capped at 0 by mlcommons.10 (A.1): The only documented engagement evaluated a publicly released model inside an enclave; no pre-release access from a lab is documented.. Floors up to 0 from mlcommons.03 do not exceed the cap.
Scope control 3/4
Anchor 3: Evaluator sets scope and can add questions.
evidence: tier 3 (self)
Floored at 3 by mlcommons.05 (S.5): Benchmark design set by working group.. No admissible signal caps it.
Publication rights 2/4
Anchor 2: Publishes; lab reviews with broad redaction.
evidence: tier 3 (self)
mechanism: self-imposed
Floored at 2 by mlcommons.06 (R.7): Publishes results.. No admissible signal caps it.
Method transparency 3/4
Anchor 3: Tasks or code partly open.
evidence: tier 3 (self)
Floored at 3 by mlcommons.02 (M.1): Open benchmark specification and methodology.. No admissible signal caps it.
Role incompatibility 3/4
Anchor 3: Tools are open or free to the ecosystem.
evidence: tier 3 (self)
Floored at 3 by mlcommons.08 (X.4): Benchmarks free to use.. No admissible signal caps it.

Values under each evidence policy

DimensionLeads includedRetrieved & confirmedAgainst interestVerified spansPrimary only
Funding1111–
Governance22222
Personnel2222–
Access depth (lab-granted)0000–
Scope control33–3–
Publication rights22–2–
Method transparency3333–
Role incompatibility33–3–
Score, Lab procurement– Conditional floor, 8/8– Conditional floor, 8/8– Conditional floor, 5/8– Conditional floor, 8/8– No floor triggered, 1/8
Score, Regulator or auditor– Conditional floor, 8/8– Conditional floor, 8/8– Conditional floor, 5/8– Conditional floor, 8/8– No floor triggered, 1/8
Score, Public trust– Conditional floor, 8/8– Conditional floor, 8/8– Conditional floor, 5/8– Conditional floor, 8/8– No floor triggered, 1/8
Score, Equal weights– Conditional floor, 8/8– Conditional floor, 8/8– Conditional floor, 5/8– Conditional floor, 8/8– No floor triggered, 1/8

Traced money and ties

hop 0: 1 row. Confirmed rows: 1 of 1 Dollar sums: confirmed + unaudited USD rows only; imported figures are not re-derived and never summed. Second hop traced for 1 of 1 sources. Ties: none within two steps recorded. Checked and not found: 1.

Ledger

Money in

Checked and not found

  • N13 Does Coefficient Giving fund MLCommons?
    Searched Coefficient grants index, 2,911 rows, snapshot 2026-09-11: no grant from Coefficient Giving in its index. Prompted by imported lead: kevinnbass ledger row EV17. importedhttps://coefficientgiving.org/grants/

Roles hosted

Funding graph, focused

Every one-way chain to a lab and to an evaluator at full strength, everything else faded. Hover any name to trace its connections; click a name to open its page.

The funding graph around MLCommons Teal lines are money (transfers); amber lines are roles. Solid: confirmed; dashed: imported. Hover a name to trace its chains to the labs and evaluators — each chain runs one way across the columns, never doubling back; hover a line for the row. Every element is a row in data/ledger/. Labs Direct lab ties Two steps Three or more Public or unattributed Evaluators Amazon Anthropic G42 Google / Google DeepMind Meta Microsoft OpenAI Thinking Machines Lab xAI AI Safety Fund (Frontier Model Alexandr Wang Andreessen Horowitz Anthropic employees (personal Ben Mann D.E. Shaw Ventures David Farhi Dustin Moskovitz Frontier-lab employees and alu Holden Karnofsky Jaan Tallinn Jeffrey Ladish Macroscopic Ventures (formerly Miles Brundage Neil Chowdhury Nvidia OpenAI employees (personal hol OpenAI Foundation Peter Mattson Sequoia Capital Zico Kolter Adam Gleave Artificial Intelligence Underw Clement Delangue Coefficient Giving (formerly O Good Ventures Foundation Jason Droege Longview Philanthropy Marco Mascorro Paul Christiano Rajiv Dattani Survival and Flourishing Fund Conrad Stosz Dan Hendrycks Mike McCormick Alec Radford Alignment Research Center Constellation Research Center ELMA Philanthropies Emerson Collective EU budget (Digital Europe Prog Fifty Years (50Y) Founders Pledge Founders Pledge (frontier AI f Gates Foundation Halcyon Futures High Tide Foundation Hillspire (Schmidt family offi Hudson River Trading Jacob Hilton MacKenzie Scott Magarac Venture Partners Obvious Ventures Redpoint Ventures Renaissance Philanthropy Salesforce Ventures Samsung Next Schmidt Sciences Silicon Valley Community Found Skoll Foundation Snowflake Ventures Swish Ventures Sympatico Ventures The Audacious Project (TED) UK government (DSIT) US government (NIST appropriat Valhalla Foundation Vanguard Charitable Wing Venture Capital Y Combinator Andon Labs Apollo Research AVERI Center for AI Safety Epoch AI EquiStamp EU AI Office FAR.AI Gray Swan Hugging Face Open Alignment In Irregular (formerly Pattern La METR Microsoft AI Red Team MLCommons Nemesys Insights Palisade Research RAND Corporation Redwood Research SaferAI Scale AI (SEAL) SecureBio Transluce UK AI Security Institute US CAISI (NIST)