Position: Evaluating Generative AI Systems is a Social Science Measurement Challenge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00561v1
• Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2025 21:09:51 GMT
• Title: Position: Evaluating Generative AI Systems is a Social Science Measurement Challenge
• Authors: Hanna Wallach, Meera Desai, A. Feder Cooper, Angelina Wang, Chad Atalla, Solon Barocas, Su Lin Blodgett, Alexandra Chouldechova, Emily Corvi, P. Alex Dow, Jean Garcia-Gathright, Alexandra Olteanu, Nicholas Pangakis, Stefanie Reed, Emily Sheng, Dan Vann, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Matthew Vogel, Hannah Washington, Abigail Z. Jacobs,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 78.35388859345056
• License:
• Abstract: The measurement tasks involved in evaluating generative AI (GenAI) systems are especially difficult, leading to what has been described as "a tangle of sloppy tests [and] apples-to-oranges comparisons" (Roose, 2024). In this position paper, we argue that the ML community would benefit from learning from and drawing on the social sciences when developing and using measurement instruments for evaluating GenAI systems. Specifically, our position is that evaluating GenAI systems is a social science measurement challenge. 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. This framework has two important implications for designing and evaluating evaluations: First, it can broaden the expertise involved in evaluating GenAI systems by enabling stakeholders with different perspectives to participate in conceptual debates. Second, it brings rigor to both conceptual and operational debates by offering a set of lenses for interrogating the validity of measurement instruments and their resulting measurements.

Related papers

• A Shared Standard for Valid Measurement of Generative AI Systems' Capabilities, Risks, and Impacts [38.66213773948168]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T19:50:00Z)
• 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)
• Higher education assessment practice in the era of generative AI tools [0.37282630026096586]
  This study experimented using three assessment instruments from data science, data analytics, and construction management disciplines. Our findings revealed that GenAI tools exhibit subject knowledge, problem-solving, analytical, critical thinking, and presentation skills. Based on our findings, we made recommendations on how AI tools can be utilised for teaching and learning in HE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T10:43:50Z)
• How much informative is your XAI? A decision-making assessment task to objectively measure the goodness of explanations [53.01494092422942]
  The number and complexity of personalised and user-centred approaches to XAI have rapidly grown in recent years. It emerged that user-centred approaches to XAI positively affect the interaction between users and systems. We propose an assessment task to objectively and quantitatively measure the goodness of XAI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T15:49:39Z)
• Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI [64.59151650272477]
  We propose a framework for classifying the capabilities and behavior of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) models and their precursors. This framework introduces levels of AGI performance, generality, and autonomy, providing a common language to compare models, assess risks, and measure progress along the path to AGI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-04T17:44:58Z)
• 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)

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.