A Shared Standard for Valid Measurement of Generative AI Systems' Capabilities, Risks, and Impacts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01934v1
• Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 19:50:00 GMT
• Title: A Shared Standard for Valid Measurement of Generative AI Systems' Capabilities, Risks, and Impacts
• Authors: Alexandra Chouldechova, Chad Atalla, Solon Barocas, A. Feder Cooper, Emily Corvi, P. Alex Dow, Jean Garcia-Gathright, Nicholas Pangakis, Stefanie Reed, Emily Sheng, Dan Vann, Matthew Vogel, Hannah Washington, Hanna Wallach,
• Abstract summary: The valid measurement of generative AI (GenAI) systems' capabilities, risks, and impacts forms the bedrock of our ability to evaluate these systems. We introduce a shared standard for valid measurement that helps place many of the disparate-seeming evaluation practices in use today on a common footing.
• Score: 38.66213773948168
• License:
• Abstract: The valid measurement of generative AI (GenAI) systems' capabilities, risks, and impacts forms the bedrock of our ability to evaluate these systems. We introduce a shared standard for valid measurement that helps place many of the disparate-seeming evaluation practices in use today on a common footing. Our framework, grounded in measurement theory from the social sciences, extends the work of Adcock & Collier (2001) in which the authors formalized valid measurement of concepts in political science via three processes: systematizing background concepts, operationalizing systematized concepts via annotation procedures, and applying those procedures to instances. We argue that valid measurement of GenAI systems' capabilities, risks, and impacts, further requires systematizing, operationalizing, and applying not only the entailed concepts, but also the contexts of interest and the metrics used. This involves both descriptive reasoning about particular instances and inferential reasoning about underlying populations, which is the purview of statistics. By placing many disparate-seeming GenAI evaluation practices on a common footing, our framework enables individual evaluations to be better understood, interrogated for reliability and validity, and meaningfully compared. This is an important step in advancing GenAI evaluation practices toward more formalized and theoretically grounded processes -- i.e., toward a science of GenAI evaluations.

Related papers

• Position: Evaluating Generative AI Systems is a Social Science Measurement Challenge [78.35388859345056]
  We argue that the ML community would benefit from learning from and drawing on the social sciences when developing measurement instruments for evaluating GenAI systems. We present a four-level framework, grounded in measurement theory from the social sciences, for measuring concepts related to the capabilities, behaviors, and impacts of GenAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T21:09:51Z)
• Dimensions of Generative AI Evaluation Design [51.541816010127256]
  We propose a set of general dimensions that capture critical choices involved in GenAI evaluation design. These dimensions include the evaluation setting, the task type, the input source, the interaction style, the duration, the metric type, and the scoring method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T18:25:30Z)
• Evaluating Generative AI Systems is a Social Science Measurement Challenge [78.35388859345056]
  We present a framework 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-17T02:35:30Z)
• Pessimistic Evaluation [58.736490198613154]
  We argue that evaluating information access systems assumes utilitarian values not aligned with traditions of information access based on equal access. We advocate for pessimistic evaluation of information access systems focusing on worst case utility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T15:40:09Z)
• Evaluating General-Purpose AI with Psychometrics [43.85432514910491]
  We discuss the need for a comprehensive and accurate evaluation of general-purpose AI systems such as large language models. Current evaluation methodology, mostly based on benchmarks of specific tasks, falls short of adequately assessing these versatile AI systems. To tackle these challenges, we suggest transitioning from task-oriented evaluation to construct-oriented evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T05:38:38Z)
• Towards a Comprehensive Human-Centred Evaluation Framework for Explainable AI [1.7222662622390634]
  We propose to adapt the User-Centric Evaluation Framework used in recommender systems. We integrate explanation aspects, summarise explanation properties, indicate relations between them, and categorise metrics that measure these properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T09:20:16Z)
• An Experimental Investigation into the Evaluation of Explainability Methods [60.54170260771932]
  This work compares 14 different metrics when applied to nine state-of-the-art XAI methods and three dummy methods (e.g., random saliency maps) used as references. Experimental results show which of these metrics produces highly correlated results, indicating potential redundancy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T08:07:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.