Developing and Maintaining an Open-Source Repository of AI Evaluations: Challenges and Insights

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06893v1
• Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 14:30:45 GMT
• Title: Developing and Maintaining an Open-Source Repository of AI Evaluations: Challenges and Insights
• Authors: Alexandra Abbas, Celia Waggoner, Justin Olive,
• Abstract summary: This paper presents practical insights from eight months of maintaining $_evals$, an open-source repository of 70+ community-contributed AI evaluations.<n>We identify key challenges in implementing and maintaining AI evaluations and develop solutions.
• Score: 44.99833362998488
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI evaluations have become critical tools for assessing large language model capabilities and safety. This paper presents practical insights from eight months of maintaining $inspect\_evals$, an open-source repository of 70+ community-contributed AI evaluations. We identify key challenges in implementing and maintaining AI evaluations and develop solutions including: (1) a structured cohort management framework for scaling community contributions, (2) statistical methodologies for optimal resampling and cross-model comparison with uncertainty quantification, and (3) systematic quality control processes for reproducibility. Our analysis reveals that AI evaluation requires specialized infrastructure, statistical rigor, and community coordination beyond traditional software development practices.

Related papers

• A Conceptual Framework for AI Capability Evaluations [0.0]
  We propose a conceptual framework for analyzing AI capability evaluations.<n>It offers a structured, descriptive approach that systematizes the analysis of widely used methods and terminology.<n>It also enables researchers to identify methodological weaknesses, assists practitioners in designing evaluations, and provides policymakers with a tool to scrutinize, compare, and navigate complex evaluation landscapes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T00:19:27Z)
• A Systematic Review of User-Centred Evaluation of Explainable AI in Healthcare [1.57531613028502]
  This study aims to develop a framework of well-defined, atomic properties that characterise the user experience of XAI in healthcare.<n>We also provide context-sensitive guidelines for defining evaluation strategies based on system characteristics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T18:30:00Z)
• Rethinking Machine Unlearning in Image Generation Models [59.697750585491264]
  CatIGMU is a novel hierarchical task categorization framework.<n>EvalIGMU is a comprehensive evaluation framework.<n>We construct DataIGM, a high-quality unlearning dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T11:25:14Z)
• Machine vs Machine: Using AI to Tackle Generative AI Threats in Assessment [0.0]
  This paper presents a theoretical framework for addressing the challenges posed by generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education assessment.<n>Large language models like GPT-4, Claude, and Llama increasingly demonstrate the ability to produce sophisticated academic content.<n>Surveys indicate 74-92% of students experimenting with these tools for academic purposes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-31T22:29:43Z)
• Toward a Public and Secure Generative AI: A Comparative Analysis of Open and Closed LLMs [0.0]
  This study aims to critically evaluate and compare the characteristics, opportunities, and challenges of open and closed generative AI models.<n>The proposed framework outlines key dimensions, openness, public governance, and security, as essential pillars for shaping the future of trustworthy and inclusive Gen AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T15:21:09Z)
• Edge-Cloud Collaborative Computing on Distributed Intelligence and Model Optimization: A Survey [59.52058740470727]
  Edge-cloud collaborative computing (ECCC) has emerged as a pivotal paradigm for addressing the computational demands of modern intelligent applications.<n>Recent advancements in AI, particularly deep learning and large language models (LLMs), have dramatically enhanced the capabilities of these distributed systems.<n>This survey provides a structured tutorial on fundamental architectures, enabling technologies, and emerging applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-03T13:55:38Z)
• Learning to Align Multi-Faceted Evaluation: A Unified and Robust Framework [61.38174427966444]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being used more and more extensively for automated evaluation in various scenarios.<n>Previous studies have attempted to fine-tune open-source LLMs to replicate the evaluation explanations and judgments of powerful proprietary models.<n>We propose a novel evaluation framework, ARJudge, that adaptively formulates evaluation criteria and synthesizes both text-based and code-driven analyses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T06:31:45Z)
• A Unified Framework for Evaluating the Effectiveness and Enhancing the Transparency of Explainable AI Methods in Real-World Applications [2.0681376988193843]
  "Black box" characteristic of AI models constrains interpretability, transparency, and reliability.<n>This study presents a unified XAI evaluation framework to evaluate correctness, interpretability, robustness, fairness, and completeness of explanations generated by AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-05T05:30:10Z)
• Data Analysis in the Era of Generative AI [56.44807642944589]
  This paper explores the potential of AI-powered tools to reshape data analysis, focusing on design considerations and challenges. We explore how the emergence of large language and multimodal models offers new opportunities to enhance various stages of data analysis workflow. We then examine human-centered design principles that facilitate intuitive interactions, build user trust, and streamline the AI-assisted analysis workflow across multiple apps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-27T06:31:03Z)
• Are we making progress in unlearning? Findings from the first NeurIPS unlearning competition [70.60872754129832]
  First NeurIPS competition on unlearning sought to stimulate the development of novel algorithms. Nearly 1,200 teams from across the world participated. We analyze top solutions and delve into discussions on benchmarking unlearning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T12:58:00Z)
• Standing on FURM ground -- A framework for evaluating Fair, Useful, and Reliable AI Models in healthcare systems [6.305990032645096]
  Stanford Health Care has developed a Testing and Evaluation mechanism to identify fair, useful and reliable AI models. We describe the assessment process, summarize the six assessments, and share our framework to enable others to conduct similar assessments. Our novel contributions - usefulness estimates by simulation, financial projections to quantify sustainability, and a process to do ethical assessments - are available for other healthcare systems to conduct actionable evaluations of candidate AI solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T03:33:40Z)

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.