How to build a better AI benchmark

Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE

How to build a better AI benchmark

It’s not easy being one of Silicon Valley’s favorite benchmarks. SWE-Bench (pronounced “swee bench”) launched in November 2024 to evaluate an AI model’s coding skill, using more than 2,000 real-world programming problems pulled from the public GitHub repositories of 12 different Python-based projects. In the months since then, it’s quickly become one of the most popular tests in AI. A SWE-Bench score has become a mainstay of major model releases from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google—and outside of foundation models, the fine-tuners at AI firms are in constant competition to see who can rise above the pack. The top of the leaderboard is a pileup between three different fine tunings of Anthropic’s Claude Sonnet model and Amazon’s Q developer agent. Auto Code Rover—one of the Claude modifications—nabbed the number two spot in November, and was acquired just three months later. Despite all the fervor, this isn’t exactly a truthful assessment of which model is “better.” As the benchmark has gained prominence, “you start to see that people really want that top spot,” says John Yang, a researcher on the team that developed SWE-Bench at Princeton University. As a result, entrants have begun to game the system—which is pushing many others to wonder whether there’s a better way to actually measure AI achievement. Developers of these coding agents aren’t necessarily doing anything as straightforward cheating, but they’re crafting approaches that are too neatly tailored to the specifics of the benchmark. The initial SWE-Bench test set was limited to programs written in Python, which meant developers could gain an advantage by training their models exclusively on Python code. Soon, Yang noticed that high-scoring models would fail completely when tested on different programming languages—revealing an approach to the test that he describes as “gilded.” “It looks nice and shiny at first glance, but then you try to run it on a different language and the whole thing just kind of falls apart,” Yang says. “At that point, you’re not designing a software engineering agent. You’re designing to make a SWE-Bench agent, which is much less interesting.” The SWE-Bench issue is a symptom of a more sweeping—and complicated—problem in AI evaluation, and one that’s increasingly sparking heated debate: The benchmarks the industry uses to guide development are drifting further and further away from evaluating actual capabilities, calling their basic value into question. Making the situation worse, several benchmarks, most notably FrontierMath and Chatbot Arena, have recently come under heat for an alleged lack of transparency. Nevertheless, benchmarks still play a central role in model development, even if few experts are willing to take their results at face value. OpenAI cofounder Andrej Karpathy recently described the situation as “an evaluation crisis”: the industry has fewer trusted methods for measuring capabilities and no clear path to better ones. “Historically, benchmarks were the way we evaluated AI systems,” says Vanessa Parli, director of research at Stanford University’s Institute for Human-Centered AI. “Is that the way we want to evaluate systems going forward? And if it’s not, what is the way?” A growing group of academics and AI researchers are making the case that the answer is to go smaller, trading sweeping ambition for an approach inspired by the social sciences. Specifically, they want to focus more on testing validity, which for quantitative social scientists refers to how well a given questionnaire measures what it’s claiming to measure—and, more fundamentally, whether what it is measuring has a coherent definition. That could cause trouble for benchmarks assessing hazily defined concepts like “reasoning” or “scientific knowledge”—and for developers aiming to reach the much-hyped goal of artificial general intelligence—but it would put the industry on firmer ground as it looks to prove the worth of individual models. “Taking validity seriously means asking folks in academia, industry, or wherever to show that their system does what they say it does,” says Abigail Jacobs, a University of Michigan professor who is a central figure in the new push for validity. “I think it points to a weakness in the AI world if they want to back off from showing that they can support their claim.” The limits of traditional testing If AI companies have been slow to respond to the growing failure of benchmarks, it’s partially because the test-scoring approach has been so effective for so long. One of the biggest early successes of contemporary AI was the ImageNet challenge, a kind of antecedent to contemporary benchmarks. Released in 2010 as an open challenge to researchers, the database held more than 3 million images for AI systems to categorize into 1,000 different classes. Crucially, the test was completely agnostic to methods, and any successful algorithm quickly gained credibility regardless of how it worked. When an algorithm called AlexNet broke through in 2012, with a then unconventional form of GPU training, it became one of the foundational results of modern AI. Few would have guessed in advance that AlexNet’s convolutional neural nets would be the secret to unlocking image recognition—but after it scored well, no one dared dispute it. (One of AlexNet’s developers, Ilya Sutskever, would go on to cofound OpenAI.) A large part of what made this challenge so effective was that there was little practical difference between ImageNet’s object classification challenge and the actual process of asking a computer to recognize an image. Even if there were disputes about methods, no one doubted that the highest-scoring model would have an advantage when deployed in an actual image recognition system. But in the 12 years since, AI researchers have applied that same method-agnostic approach to increasingly general tasks. SWE-Bench is commonly used as a proxy for broader coding ability, while other exam-style benchmarks often stand in for reasoning ability. That broad scope makes it difficult to be rigorous about what a specific benchmark measures—which, in turn, makes it hard to use the findings responsibly. Where things break down Anka Reuel, a PhD student who has been focusing on the benchmark problem as part of her research at Stanford, has become convinced the evaluation problem is the result of this push toward generality. “We’ve moved from task-specific models to general-purpose models,” Reuel says. “It’s not about a single task anymore but a whole bunch of tasks, so evaluation becomes harder.” Like the University of Michigan’s Jacobs, Reuel thinks “the main issue with benchmarks is validity, even more than the practical implementation,” noting: “That’s where a lot of things break down.” For a task as complicated as coding, for instance, it’s nearly impossible to incorporate every possible scenario into your problem set. As a result, it’s hard to gauge whether a model is scoring better because it’s more skilled at coding or because it has more effectively manipulated the problem set. And with so much pressure on developers to achieve record scores, shortcuts are hard to resist. For developers, the hope is that success on lots of specific benchmarks will add up to a generally capable model. But the techniques of agentic AI mean a single AI system can encompass a complex array of different models, making it hard to evaluate whether improvement on a specific task will lead to generalization. “There’s just many more knobs you can turn,” says Sayash Kapoor, a computer scientist at Princeton and a prominent critic of sloppy practices in the AI industry. “When it comes to agents, they have sort of given up on the best practices for evaluation.” In a paper from last July, Kapoor called out specific issues in how AI models were approaching the WebArena benchmark, designed by Carnegie Mellon University researchers in 2024 as a test of an AI agent’s ability to traverse the web. The benchmark consists of more than 800 tasks to be performed on a set of cloned websites mimicking Reddit, Wikipedia, and others. Kapoor and his team identified an apparent hack in the winning model, called STeP. STeP included specific instructions about how Reddit structures URLs, allowing STeP models to jump directly to a given user’s profile page (a frequent element of WebArena tasks). This shortcut wasn’t exactly cheating, but Kapoor sees it as “a serious misrepresentation of how well the agent would work had it seen the tasks in WebArena for the first time.” Because the technique was successful, though, a similar policy has since been adopted by OpenAI’s web agent Operator. (“Our evaluation setting is designed to assess how well an agent can solve tasks given some instruction about website structures and task execution,” an OpenAI representative said when reached for comment. “This approach is consistent with how others have used and reported results with WebArena.” STeP did not respond to a request for comment.) Further highlighting the problem with AI benchmarks, late last month Kapoor and a team of researchers wrote a paper that revealed significant problems in Chatbot Arena, the popular crowdsourced evaluation system. According to the paper, the leaderboard was being manipulated; many top foundation models were conducting undisclosed private testing and releasing their scores selectively. Today, even ImageNet itself, the mother of all benchmarks, has started to fall victim to validity problems. A 2023 study from researchers at the University of Washington and Google Research found that when ImageNet-winning algorithms were pitted against six real-world data sets, the architecture improvement “resulted in little to no progress,” suggesting that the external validity of the test had reached its limit. Going smaller For those who believe the main problem is validity, the best fix is reconnecting benchmarks to specific tasks. As Reuel puts it, AI developers “have to resort to these high-level benchmarks that are almost meaningless for downstream consumers, because the benchmark developers can’t anticipate the downstream task anymore.” So what if there was a way to help the downstream consumers identify this gap? In November 2024, Reuel launched a public ranking project called BetterBench, which rates benchmarks on dozens of different criteria, such as whether the code has been publicly documented. But validity is a central theme, with particular criteria challenging designers to spell out what capability their benchmark is testing and how it relates to the tasks that make up the benchmark. “You need to have a structural breakdown of the capabilities,” Reuel says. “What are the actual skills you care about, and how do you operationalize them into something we can measure?” The results are surprising. One of the highest-scoring benchmarks is also the oldest: the Arcade Learning Environment (ALE), established in 2013 as a way to test models’ ability to learn how to play a library of Atari 2600 games. One of the lowest-scoring is the Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark, a widely used test for general language skills; by the standards of BetterBench, the connection between the questions and the underlying skill was too poorly defined. BetterBench hasn’t meant much for the reputations of specific benchmarks, at least not yet; MMLU is still widely used, and ALE is still marginal. But the project has succeeded in pushing validity into the broader conversation about how to fix benchmarks. In April, Reuel quietly joined a new research group hosted by Hugging Face, the University of Edinburgh, and EleutherAI, where she’ll develop her ideas on validity and AI model evaluation with other figures in the field. (An official announcement is expected later this month.) Irene Solaiman, Hugging Face’s head of global policy, says the group will focus on building valid benchmarks that go beyond measuring straightforward capabilities. “There’s just so much hunger for a good benchmark off the shelf that already works,” Solaiman says. “A lot of evaluations are trying to do too much.” Increasingly, the rest of the industry seems to agree. In a paper in March, researchers from Google, Microsoft, Anthropic, and others laid out a new framework for improving evaluations—with validity as the first step. “AI evaluation science must,” the researchers argue, “move beyond coarse grained claims of ‘general intelligence’ towards more task-specific and real-world relevant measures of progress.” Measuring the “squishy” things To help make this shift, some researchers are looking to the tools of social science. A February position paper argued that “evaluating GenAI systems is a social science measurement challenge,” specifically unpacking how the validity systems used in social measurements can be applied to AI benchmarking. The authors, largely employed by Microsoft’s research branch but joined by academics from Stanford and the University of Michigan, point to the standards that social scientists use to measure contested concepts like ideology, democracy, and media bias. Applied to AI benchmarks, those same procedures could offer a way to measure concepts like “reasoning” and “math proficiency” without slipping into hazy generalizations. In the social science literature, it’s particularly important that metrics begin with a rigorous definition of the concept measured by the test. For instance, if the test is to measure how democratic a society is, it first needs to establish a definition for a “democratic society” and then establish questions that are relevant to that definition. To apply this to a benchmark like SWE-Bench, designers would need to set aside the classic machine learning approach, which is to collect programming problems from GitHub and create a scheme to validate answers as true or false. Instead, they’d first need to define what the benchmark aims to measure (“ability to resolve flagged issues in software,” for instance), break that into subskills (different types of problems or types of program that the AI model can successfully process), and then finally assemble questions that accurately cover the different subskills. It’s a profound change from how AI researchers typically approach benchmarking—but for researchers like Jacobs, a coauthor on the February paper, that’s the whole point. “There’s a mismatch between what’s happening in the tech industry and these tools from social science,” she says. “We have decades and decades of thinking about how we want to measure these squishy things about humans.” Even though the idea has made a real impact in the research world, it’s been slow to influence the way AI companies are actually using benchmarks. The last two months have seen new model releases from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta, and all of them lean heavily on multiple-choice knowledge benchmarks like MMLU—the exact approach that validity researchers are trying to move past. After all, model releases are, for the most part, still about showing increases in general intelligence, and broad benchmarks continue to be used to back up those claims. For some observers, that’s good enough. Benchmarks, Wharton professor Ethan Mollick says, are “bad measures of things, but also they’re what we’ve got.” He adds: “At the same time, the models are getting better. A lot of sins are forgiven by fast progress.” For now, the industry’s long-standing focus on artificial general intelligence seems to be crowding out a more focused validity-based approach. As long as AI models can keep growing in general intelligence, then specific applications don’t seem as compelling—even if that leaves practitioners relying on tools they no longer fully trust. “This is the tightrope we’re walking,” says Hugging Face’s Solaiman. “It’s too easy to throw the system out, but evaluations are really helpful in understanding our models, even with these limitations.” Russell Brandom is a freelance writer covering artificial intelligence. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife and two cats. This story was supported by a grant from the Tarbell Center for AI Journalism.

It’s not easy being one of Silicon Valley’s favorite benchmarks.

SWE-Bench (pronounced “swee bench”) launched in November 2024 to evaluate an AI model’s coding skill, using more than 2,000 real-world programming problems pulled from the public GitHub repositories of 12 different Python-based projects.

In the months since then, it’s quickly become one of the most popular tests in AI. A SWE-Bench score has become a mainstay of major model releases from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google—and outside of foundation models, the fine-tuners at AI firms are in constant competition to see who can rise above the pack. The top of the leaderboard is a pileup between three different fine tunings of Anthropic’s Claude Sonnet model and Amazon’s Q developer agent. Auto Code Rover—one of the Claude modifications—nabbed the number two spot in November, and was acquired just three months later.

Despite all the fervor, this isn’t exactly a truthful assessment of which model is “better.” As the benchmark has gained prominence, “you start to see that people really want that top spot,” says John Yang, a researcher on the team that developed SWE-Bench at Princeton University. As a result, entrants have begun to game the system—which is pushing many others to wonder whether there’s a better way to actually measure AI achievement.

Developers of these coding agents aren’t necessarily doing anything as straightforward cheating, but they’re crafting approaches that are too neatly tailored to the specifics of the benchmark. The initial SWE-Bench test set was limited to programs written in Python, which meant developers could gain an advantage by training their models exclusively on Python code. Soon, Yang noticed that high-scoring models would fail completely when tested on different programming languages—revealing an approach to the test that he describes as “gilded.”

“It looks nice and shiny at first glance, but then you try to run it on a different language and the whole thing just kind of falls apart,” Yang says. “At that point, you’re not designing a software engineering agent. You’re designing to make a SWE-Bench agent, which is much less interesting.”

The SWE-Bench issue is a symptom of a more sweeping—and complicated—problem in AI evaluation, and one that’s increasingly sparking heated debate: The benchmarks the industry uses to guide development are drifting further and further away from evaluating actual capabilities, calling their basic value into question. Making the situation worse, several benchmarks, most notably FrontierMath and Chatbot Arena, have recently come under heat for an alleged lack of transparency. Nevertheless, benchmarks still play a central role in model development, even if few experts are willing to take their results at face value. OpenAI cofounder Andrej Karpathy recently described the situation as “an evaluation crisis”: the industry has fewer trusted methods for measuring capabilities and no clear path to better ones.

“Historically, benchmarks were the way we evaluated AI systems,” says Vanessa Parli, director of research at Stanford University’s Institute for Human-Centered AI. “Is that the way we want to evaluate systems going forward? And if it’s not, what is the way?”

A growing group of academics and AI researchers are making the case that the answer is to go smaller, trading sweeping ambition for an approach inspired by the social sciences. Specifically, they want to focus more on testing validity, which for quantitative social scientists refers to how well a given questionnaire measures what it’s claiming to measure—and, more fundamentally, whether what it is measuring has a coherent definition. That could cause trouble for benchmarks assessing hazily defined concepts like “reasoning” or “scientific knowledge”—and for developers aiming to reach the much–hyped goal of artificial general intelligence—but it would put the industry on firmer ground as it looks to prove the worth of individual models.

“Taking validity seriously means asking folks in academia, industry, or wherever to show that their system does what they say it does,” says Abigail Jacobs, a University of Michigan professor who is a central figure in the new push for validity. “I think it points to a weakness in the AI world if they want to back off from showing that they can support their claim.”

The limits of traditional testing

If AI companies have been slow to respond to the growing failure of benchmarks, it’s partially because the test-scoring approach has been so effective for so long.

One of the biggest early successes of contemporary AI was the ImageNet challenge, a kind of antecedent to contemporary benchmarks. Released in 2010 as an open challenge to researchers, the database held more than 3 million images for AI systems to categorize into 1,000 different classes.

Crucially, the test was completely agnostic to methods, and any successful algorithm quickly gained credibility regardless of how it worked. When an algorithm called AlexNet broke through in 2012, with a then unconventional form of GPU training, it became one of the foundational results of modern AI. Few would have guessed in advance that AlexNet’s convolutional neural nets would be the secret to unlocking image recognition—but after it scored well, no one dared dispute it. (One of AlexNet’s developers, Ilya Sutskever, would go on to cofound OpenAI.)

A large part of what made this challenge so effective was that there was little practical difference between ImageNet’s object classification challenge and the actual process of asking a computer to recognize an image. Even if there were disputes about methods, no one doubted that the highest-scoring model would have an advantage when deployed in an actual image recognition system.

But in the 12 years since, AI researchers have applied that same method-agnostic approach to increasingly general tasks. SWE-Bench is commonly used as a proxy for broader coding ability, while other exam-style benchmarks often stand in for reasoning ability. That broad scope makes it difficult to be rigorous about what a specific benchmark measures—which, in turn, makes it hard to use the findings responsibly.

Where things break down

Anka Reuel, a PhD student who has been focusing on the benchmark problem as part of her research at Stanford, has become convinced the evaluation problem is the result of this push toward generality. “We’ve moved from task-specific models to general-purpose models,” Reuel says. “It’s not about a single task anymore but a whole bunch of tasks, so evaluation becomes harder.”

Like the University of Michigan’s Jacobs, Reuel thinks “the main issue with benchmarks is validity, even more than the practical implementation,” noting: “That’s where a lot of things break down.” For a task as complicated as coding, for instance, it’s nearly impossible to incorporate every possible scenario into your problem set. As a result, it’s hard to gauge whether a model is scoring better because it’s more skilled at coding or because it has more effectively manipulated the problem set. And with so much pressure on developers to achieve record scores, shortcuts are hard to resist.

For developers, the hope is that success on lots of specific benchmarks will add up to a generally capable model. But the techniques of agentic AI mean a single AI system can encompass a complex array of different models, making it hard to evaluate whether improvement on a specific task will lead to generalization. “There’s just many more knobs you can turn,” says Sayash Kapoor, a computer scientist at Princeton and a prominent critic of sloppy practices in the AI industry. “When it comes to agents, they have sort of given up on the best practices for evaluation.”

In a paper from last July, Kapoor called out specific issues in how AI models were approaching the WebArena benchmark, designed by Carnegie Mellon University researchers in 2024 as a test of an AI agent’s ability to traverse the web. The benchmark consists of more than 800 tasks to be performed on a set of cloned websites mimicking Reddit, Wikipedia, and others. Kapoor and his team identified an apparent hack in the winning model, called STeP. STeP included specific instructions about how Reddit structures URLs, allowing STeP models to jump directly to a given user’s profile page (a frequent element of WebArena tasks).

This shortcut wasn’t exactly cheating, but Kapoor sees it as “a serious misrepresentation of how well the agent would work had it seen the tasks in WebArena for the first time.” Because the technique was successful, though, a similar policy has since been adopted by OpenAI’s web agent Operator. (“Our evaluation setting is designed to assess how well an agent can solve tasks given some instruction about website structures and task execution,” an OpenAI representative said when reached for comment. “This approach is consistent with how others have used and reported results with WebArena.” STeP did not respond to a request for comment.)

Further highlighting the problem with AI benchmarks, late last month Kapoor and a team of researchers wrote a paper that revealed significant problems in Chatbot Arena, the popular crowdsourced evaluation system. According to the paper, the leaderboard was being manipulated; many top foundation models were conducting undisclosed private testing and releasing their scores selectively.

Today, even ImageNet itself, the mother of all benchmarks, has started to fall victim to validity problems. A 2023 study from researchers at the University of Washington and Google Research found that when ImageNet-winning algorithms were pitted against six real-world data sets, the architecture improvement “resulted in little to no progress,” suggesting that the external validity of the test had reached its limit.

Going smaller

For those who believe the main problem is validity, the best fix is reconnecting benchmarks to specific tasks. As Reuel puts it, AI developers “have to resort to these high-level benchmarks that are almost meaningless for downstream consumers, because the benchmark developers can’t anticipate the downstream task anymore.” So what if there was a way to help the downstream consumers identify this gap?

In November 2024, Reuel launched a public ranking project called BetterBench, which rates benchmarks on dozens of different criteria, such as whether the code has been publicly documented. But validity is a central theme, with particular criteria challenging designers to spell out what capability their benchmark is testing and how it relates to the tasks that make up the benchmark.

“You need to have a structural breakdown of the capabilities,” Reuel says. “What are the actual skills you care about, and how do you operationalize them into something we can measure?”

The results are surprising. One of the highest-scoring benchmarks is also the oldest: the Arcade Learning Environment (ALE), established in 2013 as a way to test models’ ability to learn how to play a library of Atari 2600 games. One of the lowest-scoring is the Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark, a widely used test for general language skills; by the standards of BetterBench, the connection between the questions and the underlying skill was too poorly defined.

BetterBench hasn’t meant much for the reputations of specific benchmarks, at least not yet; MMLU is still widely used, and ALE is still marginal. But the project has succeeded in pushing validity into the broader conversation about how to fix benchmarks. In April, Reuel quietly joined a new research group hosted by Hugging Face, the University of Edinburgh, and EleutherAI, where she’ll develop her ideas on validity and AI model evaluation with other figures in the field. (An official announcement is expected later this month.)

Irene Solaiman, Hugging Face’s head of global policy, says the group will focus on building valid benchmarks that go beyond measuring straightforward capabilities. “There’s just so much hunger for a good benchmark off the shelf that already works,” Solaiman says. “A lot of evaluations are trying to do too much.”

Increasingly, the rest of the industry seems to agree. In a paper in March, researchers from Google, Microsoft, Anthropic, and others laid out a new framework for improving evaluations—with validity as the first step.

“AI evaluation science must,” the researchers argue, “move beyond coarse grained claims of ‘general intelligence’ towards more task-specific and real-world relevant measures of progress.”

Measuring the “squishy” things

To help make this shift, some researchers are looking to the tools of social science. A February position paper argued that “evaluating GenAI systems is a social science measurement challenge,” specifically unpacking how the validity systems used in social measurements can be applied to AI benchmarking.

The authors, largely employed by Microsoft’s research branch but joined by academics from Stanford and the University of Michigan, point to the standards that social scientists use to measure contested concepts like ideology, democracy, and media bias. Applied to AI benchmarks, those same procedures could offer a way to measure concepts like “reasoning” and “math proficiency” without slipping into hazy generalizations.

In the social science literature, it’s particularly important that metrics begin with a rigorous definition of the concept measured by the test. For instance, if the test is to measure how democratic a society is, it first needs to establish a definition for a “democratic society” and then establish questions that are relevant to that definition.

To apply this to a benchmark like SWE-Bench, designers would need to set aside the classic machine learning approach, which is to collect programming problems from GitHub and create a scheme to validate answers as true or false. Instead, they’d first need to define what the benchmark aims to measure (“ability to resolve flagged issues in software,” for instance), break that into subskills (different types of problems or types of program that the AI model can successfully process), and then finally assemble questions that accurately cover the different subskills.

It’s a profound change from how AI researchers typically approach benchmarking—but for researchers like Jacobs, a coauthor on the February paper, that’s the whole point. “There’s a mismatch between what’s happening in the tech industry and these tools from social science,” she says. “We have decades and decades of thinking about how we want to measure these squishy things about humans.”

Even though the idea has made a real impact in the research world, it’s been slow to influence the way AI companies are actually using benchmarks.

The last two months have seen new model releases from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta, and all of them lean heavily on multiple-choice knowledge benchmarks like MMLU—the exact approach that validity researchers are trying to move past. After all, model releases are, for the most part, still about showing increases in general intelligence, and broad benchmarks continue to be used to back up those claims.

For some observers, that’s good enough. Benchmarks, Wharton professor Ethan Mollick says, are “bad measures of things, but also they’re what we’ve got.” He adds: “At the same time, the models are getting better. A lot of sins are forgiven by fast progress.”

For now, the industry’s long-standing focus on artificial general intelligence seems to be crowding out a more focused validity-based approach. As long as AI models can keep growing in general intelligence, then specific applications don’t seem as compelling—even if that leaves practitioners relying on tools they no longer fully trust.

“This is the tightrope we’re walking,” says Hugging Face’s Solaiman. “It’s too easy to throw the system out, but evaluations are really helpful in understanding our models, even with these limitations.”

Russell Brandom is a freelance writer covering artificial intelligence. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife and two cats.

This story was supported by a grant from the Tarbell Center for AI Journalism.

Stay Ahead

Explore More Insights

Stay ahead with more perspectives on cutting-edge power, infrastructure, energy, bitcoin and AI solutions. Explore these articles to uncover strategies and insights shaping the future of industries.

Cisco strengthens integrated IT/OT network and security controls

Another significant move that will help IT/OT integration is the planned integration of the management console for Cisco’s Catalyst and Meraki networks. That combination will allow IT and OT teams to see the same dashboard for industrial OT and IT enterprise/campus networks. Cyber Vision will feeds into the dashboard along

AI spending to reach $1.5 trillion this year, Gartner says

AI features: often sold, not selected In market segments such as AI PCs, on the other hand, it is very clear that AI is largely sold along with the product and not specifically selected, according to the Gartner analyst. “When people go into a store today to buy a new

MOL’s Tiszaújváros steam cracker processes first circular feedstock

MOL Group has completed its first certified production trial using circular feedstock at subsidiary MOL Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. complex in Tiszaújváros, Hungary, advancing the company’s strategic push toward circular economy integration in petrochemical production. Confirmed completed as of Sept. 15, the pilot marked MOL Group’s first use of post-consumer plastic

Network jobs watch: Hiring, skills and certification trends

Desire for higher compensation Improve career prospects Want more interesting work “A robust and engaged tech workforce is essential to keeping enterprises operating at the highest level,” said Julia Kanouse, Chief Membership Officer at ISACA, in a statement. “In better understanding IT professionals’ motivations and pain points, including how these

WTI Falls on Stockpile, Fed Moves

Oil eased after a three-session advance as traders assessed fresh US stockpile data and a Federal Reserve interest-rate cut. West Texas Intermediate fell 0.7% to settle above $64 a barrel after the Federal Reserve lowered its benchmark interest rate by a quarter percentage point and penciled in two more reductions this year. Although lower rates typically boost energy demand, investors focused on policymakers’ warnings of mounting labor market weakness. Traders had also mostly priced in a 25 basis-point cut ahead of the decision, leading some to unwind hedges against a bigger-than-expected reduction. The dollar strengthened, making commodities priced in the currency less attractive. “There is a somewhat counterintuitive reaction to the Fed’s cut, but the dovish pivot cements their shift to protect the labor side of their mandate,” said Frank Monkam, head of macro trading at Buffalo Bayou Commodities. The shift suggests “an admission that growth risks to the economy are becoming more apparent and concerning.” The Fed move compounded an earlier slide as traders discounted the most recent US stockpile data, which showed crude inventories fell 9.29 million barrels amid a sizable increase in exports. However, the adjustment factor ballooned and distillate inventories rose to the highest since January, adding a bearish tilt to the report. “Traders like to see domestic demand pulling the inventories,” as opposed to exports, said Dennis Kissler, senior vice president for trading at BOK Financial Securities. The distillate buildup also stunted a rally following Ukraine’s attack on the Saratov refinery in its latest strike on Russian energy facilities — which have helped cut the OPEC+ member’s production to its lowest post-pandemic level, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Still, the strikes haven’t been enough to push oil out of the $5 band it has been in for most of the past month-and-a-half, buffeted between

XRG Walks Away From $19B Santos Takeover

Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. dropped its planned $19 billion takeover of Australian natural gas producer Santos Ltd., walking away from an ambitious effort to expand overseas after failing to agree on key terms. A “combination of factors” discouraged the company’s XRG unit from making a final bid, it said Wednesday. The decision was strictly commercial and reflected disagreement over issues including valuation and tax, people familiar with the matter said, asking not to be identified discussing private information. It’s a notable retreat for XRG, the Adnoc spinoff launched to great fanfare last year and tasked with deploying Abu Dhabi’s billions into international dealmaking. The firm has been looking to build a global portfolio, particularly in chemicals and liquefied natural gas, and nixing the Santos transaction may slow an M&A drive aimed at diversifying the Middle Eastern emirate away from crude. The company made its indicative offer in June with a consortium that included Abu Dhabi Development Holding Co. and Carlyle Group Inc. The board of Santos, Australia’s second-largest fossil-fuel producer, recommended the $5.76-a-share proposal, which represented a 28% premium to the stock price at the time. But although the shares surged that day, they have remained well below the offer price, potentially indicating investors were skeptical the consortium could land the deal. Santos extended an exclusivity period for a second time last month, saying the group had sought more time to complete due diligence and obtain approvals. “The market will ask questions about Santos’ valuation after this,” Saul Kavonic, an energy analyst at MST Marquee, said by email. Investors may be wary about “any skeletons that may be lurking there, all the more so because XRG was a less price-sensitive buyer than most, yet still couldn’t make it work.” Santos’ American depositary receipts slumped as much as 9.5% to $4.69 on Wednesday. Covestro Hurdles Following agreements for

Slovakia and Hungary Resist Trump Bid to Halt Russian Energy

Slovakia and Hungary signaled they would resist pressure from US President Donald Trump to cut Russian oil and gas imports until the European Union member states find sufficient alternative supplies. “Before we can fully commit, we need to have the right conditions in place — otherwise we risk seriously damaging our industry and economy,” Slovak Economy Minister Denisa Sakova told reporters in Bratislava on Wednesday. The minister said sufficient infrastructure must first be in place to support alternative routes. The comments amount to a pushback against fresh pressure from Trump for all EU states to end Russian energy imports, a move that would hit Slovakia and Hungary. Hungarian Cabinet Minister Gergely Gulyas reiterated that his country would rebuff EU initiatives that threatened the security of its energy supplies. Sakova said she made clear Slovakia’s position during talks with US Energy Secretary Chris Wright in Vienna this week. She said the Trump official expressed understanding, while acknowledging that the US must boost energy projects in Europe. Trump said over the weekend that he’s prepared to move ahead with “major” sanctions on Russian oil if European nations do the same. The government in Bratislava is prepared to shut its Russian energy links if it has sufficient infrastructure to transport volumes, Sakova said. “As long as we have an alternative route, and the transmission capacity is sufficient, Slovakia has no problem diversifying,” the minister said. A complete cutoff of Russian supplies would pose a risk, she said, because Slovakia is located at the very end of alternative supply routes coming from the West. Slovakia and Hungary, landlocked nations bordering Ukraine, have historically depended on Russian oil and gas. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, both launched several diversification initiatives. Slovakia imports around third of its oil from non-Russian sources via the Adria pipeline

Slovakia Resists Pressure to Quickly Halt Russian Energy

Energy-related US CO2 emissions down 20% since 2005: EIA

Listen to the article 2 min This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. Per capita carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption fell in every state from 2005 to 2023, primarily due to less coal being burned, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in a Monday report. In total, CO2 emissions fell by 20% in those years. The U.S. population increased by 14% during that period, so per capita, emissions fell by 30%, according to EIA. “Increased electricity generation from natural gas, which releases about half as many CO2 emissions per unit of energy when combusted as coal, and from non-CO2-emitting wind and solar generation offset the decrease in coal generation,” EIA said. Emissions decreased in every state, falling the most in Maryland and the District of Columbia, which saw per capita drops of 49% and 48%, respectively. Emissions fell the least in Idaho, where they dropped by 3%, and Mississippi, where they dropped by 1%. Optional Caption Courtesy of Energy Information Administration “In 2023, Maryland had the lowest per capita CO2 emissions of any state, at 7.8 metric tons of CO2 (mtCO2), which is the second lowest in recorded data beginning in 1960,” EIA said. “The District of Columbia has lower per capita CO2 emissions than any state and tied its record low of 3.6 mtCO2 in 2023.” EIA forecasts a 1% increase in total U.S. emissions from energy consumption this year, “in part because of more recent increased fossil fuel consumption for crude oil production and electricity generation growth.” In 2023, the transportation sector was responsible for the largest share of emissions from energy consumption across 28 states, EIA said. In 2005, the electric power sector had “accounted for the largest share of emissions in 31 states, while the transportation sector made up the

Chord Announces ‘Strategic Acquisition of Williston Basin Assets’

Chord Energy Corporation announced a “strategic acquisition of Williston Basin assets” in a statement posted on its website recently. In the statement, Chord said a wholly owned subsidiary of the company has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire assets in the Williston Basin from XTO Energy Inc. and affiliates for a total cash consideration of $550 million, subject to customary purchase price adjustments. The consideration is expected to be funded through a combination of cash on hand and borrowings, Chord noted in the statement, which highlighted that the effective date for the transaction is September 1, 2025, and that the deal is expected to close by year-end. Chord outlined in the statement that the deal includes 48,000 net acres in the Williston core, noting that “90 net 10,000 foot equivalent locations (72 net operated) extend Chord’s inventory life”. Pointing out “inventory quality” in the statement, Chord highlighted that “low average NYMEX WTI breakeven economics ($40s) compete at the front-end of Chord’s program and lower the weighted-average breakeven of Chord’s portfolio”. The company outlined that the deal is “expected to be accretive to all key metrics including cash flow, free cash flow and NAV in both near and long-term”. “We are excited to announce the acquisition of these high-quality assets,” Danny Brown, Chord Energy’s President and Chief Executive Officer, said in the statement. “The acquired assets are in one of the best areas of the Williston Basin and have significant overlap with Chord’s existing footprint, setting the stage for long-lateral development. The assets have a low average NYMEX WTI breakeven and are immediately competitive for capital,” he added. “We expect that the transaction will create significant accretion for shareholders across all key metrics, while maintaining pro forma leverage below the peer group and supporting sustainable FCF generation and return of capital,” he continued.

Land and Expand: CleanArc Data Centers, Google, Duke Energy, Aligned’s ODATA, Fermi America

Land and Expand is a monthly feature at Data Center Frontier highlighting the latest data center development news, including new sites, land acquisitions and campus expansions. Here are some of the new and notable developments from hyperscale and colocation data center operators about which we’ve been reading lately. Caroline County, VA, Approves 650-Acre Data Center Campus from CleanArc Caroline County, Virginia, has approved redevelopment of the former Virginia Bazaar property in Ruther Glen into a 650-acre data center campus in partnership with CleanArc Data Centers Operating, LLC. On September 9, 2025, the Caroline County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an economic development performance agreement with CleanArc to transform the long-vacant flea market site just off I-95. The agreement allows for the phased construction of three initial data center buildings, each measuring roughly 500,000 square feet, which CleanArc plans to lease to major operators. The project represents one of the county’s largest-ever private investments. While CleanArc has not released a final capital cost, county filings suggest the development could reach into the multi-billion-dollar range over its full buildout. Key provisions include: Local hiring: At least 50 permanent jobs at no less than 150% of the prevailing county wage. Revenue sharing: Caroline County will provide annual incentive grants equal to 25% of incremental tax revenue generated by the campus. Water stewardship: CleanArc is prohibited from using potable county water for data center cooling, requiring the developer to pursue alternative technologies such as non-potable sources, recycled water, or advanced liquid cooling systems. Local officials have emphasized the deal’s importance for diversifying the county’s tax base, while community observers will be watching closely to see which cooling strategies CleanArc adopts in order to comply with the water-use restrictions. Google to Build $10 Billion Data Center Campus in Arkansas Moses Tucker Partners, one of Arkansas’

Hyperion and Alice & Bob Call on HPC Centers to Prepare Now for Early Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing

As the data center industry continues to chase greater performance for AI and scientific workloads, a new joint report from Hyperion Research and Alice & Bob is urging high performance computing (HPC) centers to take immediate steps toward integrating early fault-tolerant quantum computing (eFTQC) into their infrastructure. The report, “Seizing Quantum’s Edge: Why and How HPC Should Prepare for eFTQC,” paints a clear picture: the next five years will demand hybrid HPC-quantum workflows if institutions want to stay at the forefront of computational science. According to the analysis, up to half of current HPC workloads at U.S. government research labs—Los Alamos National Laboratory, the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, and Department of Energy leadership computing facilities among them—could benefit from the speedups and efficiency gains of eFTQC. “Quantum technologies are a pivotal opportunity for the HPC community, offering the potential to significantly accelerate a wide range of critical science and engineering applications in the near-term,” said Bob Sorensen, Senior VP and Chief Analyst for Quantum Computing at Hyperion Research. “However, these machines won’t be plug-and-play, so HPC centers should begin preparing for integration now, ensuring they can influence system design and gain early operational expertise.” The HPC Bottleneck: Why Quantum is Urgent The report underscores a familiar challenge for the HPC community: classical performance gains have slowed as transistor sizes approach physical limits and energy efficiency becomes increasingly difficult to scale. Meanwhile, the threshold for useful quantum applications is drawing nearer. Advances in qubit stability and error correction, particularly Alice & Bob’s cat qubit technology, have compressed the resource requirements for algorithms like Shor’s by an estimated factor of 1,000. Within the next five years, the report projects that quantum computers with 100–1,000 logical qubits and logical error rates between 10⁻⁶ and 10⁻¹⁰ will accelerate applications across materials science, quantum

Google Partners With Utilities to Ease AI Data Center Grid Strain

Transmission and Power Strategy These agreements build on Google’s growing set of strategies to manage electricity needs. In June of 2025, Google announced a deal with CTC Global to upgrade transmission lines with high-capacity composite conductors that increase throughput without requiring new towers. In July 2025, Google and Brookfield Asset Management unveiled a hydropower framework agreement worth up to $3 billion, designed to secure firm clean energy for data centers in PJM and Eastern markets. Alongside renewable deals, Google has signed nuclear supply agreements as well, most notably a landmark contract with Kairos Power for small modular reactor capacity. Each of these moves reflects Google’s effort to create more headroom on the grid while securing firm, carbon-free power. Workload Flexibility and Grid Innovation The demand-response strategy is uniquely suited to AI data centers because of workload diversity. Machine learning training runs can sometimes be paused or rescheduled, unlike latency-sensitive workloads. This flexibility allows Google to throttle certain compute-heavy processes in coordination with utilities. In practice, Google can preemptively pause or shift workloads when notified of peak events, ensuring critical services remain uninterrupted while still creating significant grid relief. Local Utility Impact For utilities like I&M and TVA, partnering with hyperscale customers has a dual benefit: stabilizing the grid while keeping large customers satisfied and growing within their service territories. It also signals to regulators and ratepayers that data centers, often criticized for their heavy energy footprint, can actively contribute to reliability. These agreements may help avoid contentious rate cases or delays in permitting new power plants. Policy, Interconnection Queues, and the Economics of Speed One of the biggest hurdles for data center development today is the long wait in interconnection queues. In regions like PJM Interconnection, developers often face waits of three to five years before new projects can connect

Generators, Gas, and Grid Strategy: Inside Generac’s Data Center Play

A Strategic Leap Generac’s entry represents a strategic leap. Long established as a leader in residential, commercial, and industrial generation—particularly in the sub-2 megawatt range—the company has now expanded into mission-critical applications with new products spanning 2.2 to 3.5 megawatts. Navarro said the timing was deliberate, citing market constraints that have slowed hyperscale and colocation growth. “The current OEMs serving this market are actually limiting the ability to produce and to grow the data center market,” he noted. “Having another player … with enough capacity to compensate those shortfalls has been received very, very well.” While Generac isn’t seeking to reinvent the wheel, it is intent on differentiation. Customers, Navarro explained, want a good quality product, uneventful deployment, and a responsive support network. On top of those essentials, Generac is leveraging its ongoing transformation from generator manufacturer to energy technology company, a shift accelerated by a series of acquisitions in areas like telemetry, monitoring, and energy management. “We’ve made several acquisitions to move away from being just a generator manufacturer to actually being an energy technology company,” Navarro said. “So we are entering this space of energy efficiency, energy management—monitoring, telemetrics, everything that improves the experience and improves the usage of those generators and the energy management at sites.” That foundation positions Generac to meet the newest challenge reshaping backup generation: the rise of AI-centric workloads. Natural Gas Interest—and the Race to Shorter Lead Times As the industry looks beyond diesel, customer interest in natural gas generation is rising. Navarro acknowledged the shift, but noted that diesel still retains an edge. “We’ve seen an increase on gas requests,” he said. “But the power density of diesel is more convenient than gas today.” That tradeoff, however, could narrow. Navarro pointed to innovations such as industrial storage paired with gas units, which

Executive Roundtable: Cooling, Costs, and Integration in the AI Data Center Era

Becky Wacker, Trane: As AI workloads increasingly dominate new data center builds, operators face significant challenges in managing thermal loads and water resources. These challenges include significantly higher heat density, large, aggregated load spikes, uneven distribution of cooling needs, and substantial water requirements if using traditional evaporative cooling methods. The most critical risks include overheating, inefficient cooling systems, and water scarcity. These issues can lead to reduced hardware lifespan, hardware throttling, sudden shutdowns, failure to meet PUE targets, higher operational costs, and limitations on where AI data centers can be built due to water constraints. At Trane, we are evolving our solutions to meet these challenges through advanced cooling technologies such as liquid cooling and immersion cooling, which offer higher efficiency and lower thermal resistance compared to traditional air-cooling methods. Flexibility and scalability are central to our design philosophy. We believe a total system solution is crucial, integrating components such as CDUs, Fan Walls, CRAHs, and Chillers to anticipate demand and respond effectively. In addition, we are developing smart monitoring and control systems that leverage AI to predict and manage thermal loads in real-time, ensuring optimal performance and preventing overheating through Building Management Systems and integration with DCIM platforms. Our water management solutions are also being enhanced to recycle and reuse water, minimizing consumption and addressing scarcity concerns.

Power shortages are the only thing slowing the data center market

Another major shortage – which should not be news to anyone – is power. Lynch said that it is the primary reason many data centers are moving out of the heavily congested areas, like Northern Virginia and Santa Clara, and into secondary markets. Power is more available in smaller markets than larger ones. “If our client needs multi-megawatt capacity in Silicon Valley, we’re being told by the utility providers that that capacity will not be available for up to 10 years from now,” so out of necessity, many have moved to secondary markets, such as Hillsborough, Oregon, Reno, Nevada, and Columbus, Ohio. The growth of hyperscalers as well as AI is driving up the power requirements of facilities further into the multi-megawatt range. The power industry moves at a very different pace than the IT world, much slower and more deliberate. Lynch said the lead time for equipment makes it difficult to predict when some large scale, ambitious data centers can be completed. A multi-megawatt facility may even require new transmission lines to be built out as well. This translates into longer build times for new data centers. CBRE found that the average data center now takes about three years to complete, up from 2 years just a short time ago. Intel, AMD, and Nvidia haven’t even laid out a road map for three years, but with new architectures coming every year, a data center risks being obsolete by the time it’s completed. However, what’s the alternative? To wait? Customers will never catch up at that rate, Lynch said. That is simply not a viable option, so development and construction must go on even with short supplies of everything from concrete and steel to servers and power transformers.

Microsoft will invest $80B in AI data centers in fiscal 2025

And Microsoft isn’t the only one that is ramping up its investments into AI-enabled data centers. Rival cloud service providers are all investing in either upgrading or opening new data centers to capture a larger chunk of business from developers and users of large language models (LLMs). In a report published in October 2024, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that demand for generative AI would push Microsoft, AWS, Google, Oracle, Meta, and Apple would between them devote $200 billion to capex in 2025, up from $110 billion in 2023. Microsoft is one of the biggest spenders, followed closely by Google and AWS, Bloomberg Intelligence said. Its estimate of Microsoft’s capital spending on AI, at $62.4 billion for calendar 2025, is lower than Smith’s claim that the company will invest $80 billion in the fiscal year to June 30, 2025. Both figures, though, are way higher than Microsoft’s 2020 capital expenditure of “just” $17.6 billion. The majority of the increased spending is tied to cloud services and the expansion of AI infrastructure needed to provide compute capacity for OpenAI workloads. Separately, last October Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said his company planned total capex spend of $75 billion in 2024 and even more in 2025, with much of it going to AWS, its cloud computing division.

John Deere unveils more autonomous farm machines to address skill labor shortage

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Self-driving tractors might be the path to self-driving cars. John Deere has revealed a new line of autonomous machines and tech across agriculture, construction and commercial landscaping. The Moline, Illinois-based John Deere has been in business for 187 years, yet it’s been a regular as a non-tech company showing off technology at the big tech trade show in Las Vegas and is back at CES 2025 with more autonomous tractors and other vehicles. This is not something we usually cover, but John Deere has a lot of data that is interesting in the big picture of tech. The message from the company is that there aren’t enough skilled farm laborers to do the work that its customers need. It’s been a challenge for most of the last two decades, said Jahmy Hindman, CTO at John Deere, in a briefing. Much of the tech will come this fall and after that. He noted that the average farmer in the U.S. is over 58 and works 12 to 18 hours a day to grow food for us. And he said the American Farm Bureau Federation estimates there are roughly 2.4 million farm jobs that need to be filled annually; and the agricultural work force continues to shrink. (This is my hint to the anti-immigration crowd). John Deere’s autonomous 9RX Tractor. Farmers can oversee it using an app. While each of these industries experiences their own set of challenges, a commonality across all is skilled labor availability. In construction, about 80% percent of contractors struggle to find skilled labor. And in commercial landscaping, 86% of landscaping business owners can’t find labor to fill open positions, he said. “They have to figure out how to do

2025 playbook for enterprise AI success, from agents to evals

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More 2025 is poised to be a pivotal year for enterprise AI. The past year has seen rapid innovation, and this year will see the same. This has made it more critical than ever to revisit your AI strategy to stay competitive and create value for your customers. From scaling AI agents to optimizing costs, here are the five critical areas enterprises should prioritize for their AI strategy this year. 1. Agents: the next generation of automation AI agents are no longer theoretical. In 2025, they’re indispensable tools for enterprises looking to streamline operations and enhance customer interactions. Unlike traditional software, agents powered by large language models (LLMs) can make nuanced decisions, navigate complex multi-step tasks, and integrate seamlessly with tools and APIs. At the start of 2024, agents were not ready for prime time, making frustrating mistakes like hallucinating URLs. They started getting better as frontier large language models themselves improved. “Let me put it this way,” said Sam Witteveen, cofounder of Red Dragon, a company that develops agents for companies, and that recently reviewed the 48 agents it built last year. “Interestingly, the ones that we built at the start of the year, a lot of those worked way better at the end of the year just because the models got better.” Witteveen shared this in the video podcast we filmed to discuss these five big trends in detail. Models are getting better and hallucinating less, and they’re also being trained to do agentic tasks. Another feature that the model providers are researching is a way to use the LLM as a judge, and as models get cheaper (something we’ll cover below), companies can use three or more models to

OpenAI’s red teaming innovations define new essentials for security leaders in the AI era

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More OpenAI has taken a more aggressive approach to red teaming than its AI competitors, demonstrating its security teams’ advanced capabilities in two areas: multi-step reinforcement and external red teaming. OpenAI recently released two papers that set a new competitive standard for improving the quality, reliability and safety of AI models in these two techniques and more. The first paper, “OpenAI’s Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systems,” reports that specialized teams outside the company have proven effective in uncovering vulnerabilities that might otherwise have made it into a released model because in-house testing techniques may have missed them. In the second paper, “Diverse and Effective Red Teaming with Auto-Generated Rewards and Multi-Step Reinforcement Learning,” OpenAI introduces an automated framework that relies on iterative reinforcement learning to generate a broad spectrum of novel, wide-ranging attacks. Going all-in on red teaming pays practical, competitive dividends It’s encouraging to see competitive intensity in red teaming growing among AI companies. When Anthropic released its AI red team guidelines in June of last year, it joined AI providers including Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and even the U.S.’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which all had released red teaming frameworks. Investing heavily in red teaming yields tangible benefits for security leaders in any organization. OpenAI’s paper on external red teaming provides a detailed analysis of how the company strives to create specialized external teams that include cybersecurity and subject matter experts. The goal is to see if knowledgeable external teams can defeat models’ security perimeters and find gaps in their security, biases and controls that prompt-based testing couldn’t find. What makes OpenAI’s recent papers noteworthy is how well they define using human-in-the-middle

Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE