Louis Yiven Zhu | Search arXiv

arXiv2026

The Price of Intelligence: A Quality-Adjusted Price Index for AI Services

Posted prices for AI inference have fallen steadily since 2024, yet the measured speed of that fall depends almost entirely on the method of measurement. This paper constructs quality-adjusted price indices for the AI inference market from public data. The panel assembles 21,024 posted-price observations across 3,208 models and 86 providers and joins them to 4,605 benchmark scores through a latent quality index estimated from benchmark response patterns, so the quality ladder of the hedonic tradition is built here from evaluations in place of product characteristics. Measured by the matched-model methods that statistical agencies apply to software, inference prices fell at 0.10 log points a year. The quality-adjusted index fell at 0.73, so 87% of the decline is invisible to current methods, with direct consequences for measured competition, concentration and productivity in this market. Counted per completed task, moreover, the buyer's price stopped falling. Reasoning models raised token consumption faster than token prices fell, and the seller's and buyer's prices accordingly diverged. A pre-registered validity audit disciplines the quality measure and yields the sharpest result. Excluding contamination-flagged benchmarks leaves model rankings intact at 0.998 yet moves the index by 0.49 log points a year, so the leaderboard-stability arguments standard in AI evaluation offer no defence of economic statistics built on benchmarks. Prices, quality and the audit are fully reproducible from public sources at zero cost.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2026

One Capability or Many? Testing the Economic Validity of Frontier AI Evaluation

Frontier-model leaderboards now rank systems based on economic benchmarks, tests of how well models carry out professional tasks from software engineering to banking workflows, and those rankings inform what organisations buy, what regulators scrutinise, and expectations of how work will change. Whether such benchmarks measure a capability distinct from general test-taking, or re-express the one axis along which every benchmark rises as models improve, is a question of construct validity that has not yet been studied. We test it on a hash-pinned leaderboard snapshot of 421 model configurations across twelve benchmarks, four of them economic, treating benchmarks as items and models as respondents in a latent-variable model with four hypotheses and their thresholds fixed before analysis. A single factor explains 74.5% of common variance and tracks model release date (R^2 = 0.505), so the leading axis of capability is substantially a time trend; where prior work controls for scale, compute adds little once date is removed. Removing the date trend lowers that share by 14.9 points, and by 24.1 with one row per base model. Under the dimensionality rule fixed in advance the economic benchmarks form no distinct factor, yet a leave-one-benchmark-out test with factors re-estimated inside every fold shows that a multi-factor representation predicts held-out economic scores better than a single general index (pooled Delta-MSE 0.037, 95% bootstrap interval [0.019, 0.055]). Economic benchmarks therefore add incremental predictive information to a largely date-driven general factor, and the evidence does not support treating them as a distinct latent capability. Leaderboards remain a sound guide to overall progress, but most of the gap between models released months apart is calendar, so a small gap between contemporaneous models should be date-adjusted before being read as a capability difference.

cs.LG↗