pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.10939 · v1 · pith:BNBUFXES · submitted 2024-11-17 · cs.CY

Evaluating Generative AI Systems is a Social Science Measurement Challenge

pith:BNBUFXESopen to challenge →

classification cs.CY
keywords measurementevaluatingsystemsframeworkgenaimeasurementssocialtasks
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Across academia, industry, and government, there is an increasing awareness that the measurement tasks involved in evaluating generative AI (GenAI) systems are especially difficult. We argue that these measurement tasks are highly reminiscent of measurement tasks found throughout the social sciences. With this in mind, we present a framework, grounded in measurement theory from the social sciences, for measuring concepts related to the capabilities, impacts, opportunities, and risks of GenAI systems. The framework distinguishes between four levels: the background concept, the systematized concept, the measurement instrument(s), and the instance-level measurements themselves. This four-level approach differs from the way measurement is typically done in ML, where researchers and practitioners appear to jump straight from background concepts to measurement instruments, with little to no explicit systematization in between. As well as surfacing assumptions, thereby making it easier to understand exactly what the resulting measurements do and do not mean, this framework has two important implications for evaluating evaluations: First, it can enable stakeholders from different worlds to participate in conceptual debates, broadening the expertise involved in evaluating GenAI systems. Second, it brings rigor to operational debates by offering a set of lenses for interrogating the validity of measurement instruments and their resulting measurements.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Healthcare LLM Benchmarks Are Only as Good as Their Explicit Assumptions

    cs.CY 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Healthcare LLM benchmarks overlook implicit assumptions about user behavior that split into task assumptions testable from conversation data and outcome assumptions requiring behavioral studies, shown by reanalyzing a...

  2. Defining Cultural Capabilities for AI Evaluation: A Taxonomy Grounded in Intercultural Communication Theory

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Proposes a three-level taxonomy of Cultural Awareness, Cultural Sensitivity, and Cultural Competence for AI evaluation, grounded in intercultural communication scholarship to improve validity in multicultural contexts.

  3. From Controlled to the Wild: Evaluation of Pentesting Agents for the Real-World

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A practical evaluation protocol for AI pentesting agents that uses validated vulnerability discovery, LLM semantic matching, and bipartite scoring to assess performance in realistic, complex targets.

  4. Bye Bye Perspective API: Lessons for Measurement Infrastructure in NLP, CSS and LLM Evaluation

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Closure of the Perspective API exposes structural dependence on a single proprietary toxicity scorer, leaving non-updatable benchmarks and irreproducible results while risking continued reliance on closed LLMs.