AI Testing Should Account for Sophisticated Strategic Behaviour

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.14927v1
• Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 15:48:25 GMT
• Title: AI Testing Should Account for Sophisticated Strategic Behaviour
• Authors: Vojtech Kovarik, Eric Olav Chen, Sami Petersen, Alexis Ghersengorin, Vincent Conitzer,
• Abstract summary: This position paper argues for two claims regarding AI testing and evaluation.<n>First, evaluations need account for the possibility that AI systems understand their circumstances and reason strategically.<n>Second, game-theoretic analysis can inform evaluation design by formalising and scrutinising the reasoning in evaluation-based safety cases.
• Score: 19.554240127749818
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This position paper argues for two claims regarding AI testing and evaluation. First, to remain informative about deployment behaviour, evaluations need account for the possibility that AI systems understand their circumstances and reason strategically. Second, game-theoretic analysis can inform evaluation design by formalising and scrutinising the reasoning in evaluation-based safety cases. Drawing on examples from existing AI systems, a review of relevant research, and formal strategic analysis of a stylised evaluation scenario, we present evidence for these claims and motivate several research directions.

Related papers

• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• Preliminary suggestions for rigorous GPAI model evaluations [0.0]
  This document presents a preliminary compilation of general-purpose AI (GPAI) evaluation practices.<n>It includes suggestions for human uplift studies and benchmark evaluations.<n>Suggestions are organised across four stages in the evaluation life cycle: design, implementation, execution and documentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T03:27:42Z)
• 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 Framework for Adversarial Analysis of Decision Support Systems Prior to Deployment [0.33928435949901725]
  This paper introduces a framework to analyze and secure decision-support systems trained with Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL)<n>We validate our framework, visualize agent behavior, and evaluate adversarial outcomes within the context of a custom-built strategic game, CyberStrike.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T16:41:23Z)
• ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviews [9.35023998408983]
  The escalating volume of academic research, coupled with a shortage of qualified reviewers, necessitates innovative approaches to peer review.<n>We propose ReviewEval, a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI-generated reviews that measures alignment with human assessments, verifies factual accuracy, assesses analytical depth, identifies degree of constructiveness and adherence to reviewer guidelines.<n>This paper establishes essential metrics for AIbased peer review and substantially enhances the reliability and impact of AI-generated reviews in academic research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T12:22:11Z)
• Evaluating AI Evaluation: Perils and Prospects [8.086002368038658]
  This paper contends that the prevalent evaluation methods for these systems are fundamentally inadequate. I argue that a reformation is required in the way we evaluate AI systems and that we should look towards cognitive sciences for inspiration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-12T12:37:13Z)
• LLM as a Mastermind: A Survey of Strategic Reasoning with Large Language Models [75.89014602596673]
  Strategic reasoning requires understanding and predicting adversary actions in multi-agent settings while adjusting strategies accordingly. We explore the scopes, applications, methodologies, and evaluation metrics related to strategic reasoning with Large Language Models. It underscores the importance of strategic reasoning as a critical cognitive capability and offers insights into future research directions and potential improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T16:50:54Z)
• Testing autonomous vehicles and AI: perspectives and challenges from cybersecurity, transparency, robustness and fairness [53.91018508439669]
  The study explores the complexities of integrating Artificial Intelligence into Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) It examines the challenges introduced by AI components and the impact on testing procedures. The paper identifies significant challenges and suggests future directions for research and development of AI in AV technology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T08:29:42Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [55.33653554387953]
  Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) has led to numerous literature reviews aimed at collecting and fragmented information.<n>This paper presents a thorough analysis of these literature reviews within the PAMI field.<n>We try to address three core research questions: (1) What are the prevalent structural and statistical characteristics of PAMI literature reviews; (2) What strategies can researchers employ to efficiently navigate the growing corpus of reviews; and (3) What are the advantages and limitations of AI-generated reviews compared to human-authored ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• AR-LSAT: Investigating Analytical Reasoning of Text [57.1542673852013]
  We study the challenge of analytical reasoning of text and introduce a new dataset consisting of questions from the Law School Admission Test from 1991 to 2016. We analyze what knowledge understanding and reasoning abilities are required to do well on this task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-14T02:53:32Z)
• Catch Me if I Can: Detecting Strategic Behaviour in Peer Assessment [61.24399136715106]
  We consider the issue of strategic behaviour in various peer-assessment tasks, including peer grading of exams or homeworks and peer review in hiring or promotions. Our focus is on designing methods for detection of such manipulations. Specifically, we consider a setting in which agents evaluate a subset of their peers and output rankings that are later aggregated to form a final ordering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T15:08:40Z)

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.