This paper constructs quality-adjusted price indices for the AI inference market from public data and 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.
Abstract
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.
Artificial intelligence is widely viewed as an engine of new quality productive forces, yet firm-level evidence on how the two are linked—and causal evaluations of the associated industrial policies—remains scarce. Using data on Chinese A-share listed companies from 2011 to 2022, this study measures AI adoption through...
Gang Liu, Zi-Xin Huang, Zhong-Cheng Zhang et al.· Management & Marketing· 0 citations
This paper asks whether firms'exposures to news about different types of AI risk are priced in U.S. stock returns. Using AI and risk keywords, I identify 7,787 Wall Street Journal articles from January 2016 to December 2025. I combine latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) with the Domain Taxonomy in the MIT AI Risk Reposit...
Firms increasingly evaluate deployed AI agents using repeated human ratings, yet observed score changes may reflect the measurement process as much as changes in the agent itself. Firms also rarely know how long an evaluation remains informative as deployed systems evolve. We study reliability as a latent state using 2...
The result is not that frontier AI forecasting is impossible, but that a defensible dated forecast is a claim about a versioned measurement system with explicit joins, protocols, links, and source dependence, not merely a fitted curve or calendar date.
Forecasts of the productivity dividend from artificial intelligence (AI) differ by an order of magnitude, partly because they extrapolate average gains observed among early, highly exposed adopters. Whether those gains scale linearly, flatten, or are competed away is an empirical question about the shape of the return...
It is shown that additional reasoning can change financial decisions without reliably improving their economic value, motivating validation for each task before deployment.
Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.