Benchmarks Without Borders: Inside the Moduli Space of AI Psychometrics

Opening — Why this matters now

The AI industry is obsessed with benchmarks. Every model launch arrives with an arsenal of charts—MMLU, GSM8K, HumanEval—paraded as proof of competence. Unfortunately, the real world has an annoying habit of not looking like a benchmark suite.

As AI systems become multi-modal, agentic, tool-using, and deployed in mission‑critical workflows, the industry faces a structural question: How do you evaluate general intelligence when the space of possible tasks is effectively infinite?

The paper “Psychometric Tests for AI Agents and Their Moduli Space” fileciteturn0file0 introduces a mathematically disciplined answer: stop trying to evaluate AI on fixed benchmarks and instead evaluate it on the structure of all possible benchmarks.

This is not a philosophical detour. It’s a practical movement away from benchmark gaming and toward capability certification. For enterprises deploying AI—especially autonomous agents—the argument is simple:

You don’t need perfect tests. You need enough structurally diverse tests.

Background — Context and prior art

Traditional psychometrics (and modern AI benchmarking) focus on task batteries—collections of tests with structured scoring rules. But these batteries come with two recurring issues:

1. Overfitting — Models memorize benchmark formats.
2. Fragility — Small perturbations in task phrasing or seed randomness cause wild swings in measured capability.
3. Scaffolding ambiguity — Tool-augmented AI systems may appear competent thanks to external scaffolds rather than core reasoning ability.

Recent work like AAI (Autonomous Agent Index) attempts to generalize beyond benchmarks, but still evaluates a fixed set of axes (Autonomy, Planning, Generality, Memory, etc.).

This new paper reframes the entire problem: instead of treating tests as immutable objects, it treats them as points in a moduli space—a geometric object capturing all ways tests can vary while remaining “the same kind of evaluation.”

In other words: benchmarking becomes geometry.

Analysis — What the paper actually does

The paper introduces a formal machinery for benchmarking autonomous agents at scale. Three innovations matter most for practitioners:

1. Batteries as algebraic objects

A battery is defined as an 8‑tuple containing tasks, scoring rules, thresholds, sampling distributions, drift parameters, seeds, and resources. This structure allows:

• canonical score normalization
• invariances under reparameterization
• comparison across heterogeneous tests

This moves evaluation from “a messy pile of tasks” to “a structured mathematical object.”

2. The Moduli Space of Batteries

The author constructs a moduli space (think: space of all equivalent benchmarks), factoring out irrelevant symmetries like:

• task permutations within families
• reparameterized scoring scales
• equivalent resource representations

This leads to a decomposition:

This lets evaluators reason about entire classes of tests, not individual instances.

3. AAI as a Lipschitz-regular functional

The paper proves that the AAI composite score is Lipschitz-regular over the moduli space. Translated into plain English:

If an agent performs well on a sufficiently diverse set of canonical tests, its performance on all equivalent tests is guaranteed to be similar within a bounded error.

This leads to one of the most consequential results:

Determinacy Theorem

If your test suite is a dense enough subset of the moduli space, then scoring well on those tests mathematically implies scoring well on the entire universe of related tests.

That means:

• You don’t need infinite tests to measure generality.
• You only need tests covering the structure of the space.
• Benchmark overfitting becomes a solved (or at least bounded) problem.

This is the first time benchmark generalization has been given a rigorous geometric foundation.

4. Cognitive Core (AAIcore)

The paper also introduces the notion of an agent’s cognitive core—the minimal sigma‑algebra required to explain threshold‑aligned success across tasks.

This core is:

• minimal
• invariant
• unique up to isomorphism

And we can define a score on the core alone—AAIcore—that isolates competence from scaffolding.

This brings much-needed structure to debates like:

• Is the agent actually reasoning? Or memorizing?
• Is tool use masking weak internal cognition?
• Does performance persist across domains and perturbations?

5. Continuations and Non-Core Features

The full AAI score decomposes into:

1. core capability, and
2. non-core artifacts (interface skills, scaffolding, operational quirks).

The evaluators can now explicitly separate the two—a crucial step for enterprise assurance, where you must certify both “internal reasoning” and “external reliability.”

Findings — What the math guarantees

Here are the paper’s practical outputs, expressed in business terms:

1. Capability certificates are possible.

If an agent scores above a threshold with margin m across a δ‑net of canonical tests, then:

$$ \text{Worst-case score} \ge \text{Threshold} - 2L\delta $$

This is a global guarantee from finite testing.

2. Evaluation is robust to drift.

If task correlations or thresholds shift slightly (common when real-world conditions change), the Lipschitz bound caps score variation.

3. Confidence intervals scale cleanly.

The paper derives usable finite-sample concentration bounds.

4. Core competence is identifiable and decomposable.

This is crucial: enterprises can certify the difference between “agent is truly capable” and “agent looks capable due to scaffolding.”

Visual Summary

Implications — Why this matters for industry

For enterprises building agentic systems, this framework offers three immediate wins:

1. Benchmarking becomes certifiable

You can now justify to regulators, shareholders, and internal risk committees that your evaluation suite is:

• mathematically sound
• coverage-complete
• robust under distribution drift

This is a huge leap from today’s ad‑hoc benchmark culture.

2. Vendor claims become comparable

If vendors adopt moduli-space‑aligned batteries, their claims become meaningful across systems. The industry can compare apples to apples.

3. Internal governance becomes systematic

Teams can:

• track cognitive core improvements
• measure scaffolding reliance
• update test panels without invalidating historical scores

This matters as agent architectures evolve faster than evaluation standards.

4. Towards regulatory clarity

Regulations will require generality, safety, and robustness evidence.

This framework gives:

• a unifying mathematical backbone
• a path to formal certification
• a guardrail against misleading benchmarks

In short: the paper gives regulators something they can finally pick up and use.

Conclusion — The bigger picture

The most important idea in this paper is deceptively simple:

AI intelligence is not a single number. It’s the stable behavior of a system across a structured space of tests.

By elevating evaluation from static benchmarks to a moduli space, this work provides a roadmap for serious, future‑proof AI governance. It converts an unruly zoo of benchmarks into a disciplined geometry—one that business leaders, risk teams, and regulators can actually work with.

And that moves us one step closer to a mature AI ecosystem.

Cognaptus: Automate the Present, Incubate the Future.