Quantifying construct validity in large language model evaluations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15532v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 12:15:57 GMT
• Title: Quantifying construct validity in large language model evaluations
• Authors: Ryan Othniel Kearns,
• Abstract summary: LLM community often reports benchmark results as if they are synonymous with general model capabilities.<n> benchmarks can have problems that distort performance, like test set contamination and annotator error.<n>How can we know that a benchmark is a reliable indicator of some capability that we want to measure?
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The LLM community often reports benchmark results as if they are synonymous with general model capabilities. However, benchmarks can have problems that distort performance, like test set contamination and annotator error. How can we know that a benchmark is a reliable indicator of some capability that we want to measure? This question concerns the construct validity of LLM benchmarks, and it requires separating benchmark results from capabilities when we model and predict LLM performance. Both social scientists and computer scientists propose formal models - latent factor models and scaling laws - for identifying the capabilities underlying benchmark scores. However, neither technique is satisfactory for construct validity. Latent factor models ignore scaling laws, and as a result, the capabilities they extract often proxy model size. Scaling laws ignore measurement error, and as a result, the capabilities they extract are both uninterpretable and overfit to the observed benchmarks. This thesis presents the structured capabilities model, the first model to extract interpretable and generalisable capabilities from a large collection of LLM benchmark results. I fit this model and its two alternatives on a large sample of results from the OpenLLM Leaderboard. Structured capabilities outperform latent factor models on parsimonious fit indices, and exhibit better out-of-distribution benchmark prediction than scaling laws. These improvements are possible because neither existing approach separates model scale from capabilities in the appropriate way. Model scale should inform capabilities, as in scaling laws, and these capabilities should inform observed results up to measurement error, as in latent factor models. In combining these two insights, structured capabilities demonstrate better explanatory and predictive power for quantifying construct validity in LLM evaluations.

Related papers

• Beyond Accuracy: Characterizing Code Comprehension Capabilities in (Large) Language Models [4.841487377596519]
  This paper investigates whether Large Language Models' code-comprehension performance aligns with traditional human-centric software metrics.<n>We introduce a diagnostic framework that reframes code understanding as a binary input-output consistency task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T10:58:24Z)
• From Model Choice to Model Belief: Establishing a New Measure for LLM-Based Research [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior.<n>Treating an LLM's output as a single data point underutilizes the information inherent to the probabilistic nature of LLMs.<n>This paper introduces and formalizes "model belief," a measure derived from an LLM's token-level probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T03:50:40Z)
• Model Utility Law: Evaluating LLMs beyond Performance through Mechanism Interpretable Metric [99.56567010306807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications.<n>One core challenge of evaluation in the large language model (LLM) era is the generalization issue.<n>We propose Model Utilization Index (MUI), a mechanism interpretability enhanced metric that complements traditional performance scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T04:09:47Z)
• Latent Thought Models with Variational Bayes Inference-Time Computation [52.63299874322121]
  Latent Thought Models (LTMs) incorporate explicit latent thought vectors that follow an explicit prior model in latent space.<n>LTMs demonstrate superior sample and parameter efficiency compared to autoregressive models and discrete diffusion models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T17:50:34Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Observational Scaling Laws and the Predictability of Language Model Performance [51.2336010244645]
  We propose an observational approach that bypasses model training and instead builds scaling laws from 100 publically available models. We show that several emergent phenomena follow a smooth, sigmoidal behavior and are predictable from small models. We show how to predict the impact of post-training interventions like Chain-of-Thought and Self-Consistency as language model capabilities continue to improve.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T17:49:44Z)
• The Languini Kitchen: Enabling Language Modelling Research at Different Scales of Compute [66.84421705029624]
  We introduce an experimental protocol that enables model comparisons based on equivalent compute, measured in accelerator hours. We pre-process an existing large, diverse, and high-quality dataset of books that surpasses existing academic benchmarks in quality, diversity, and document length. This work also provides two baseline models: a feed-forward model derived from the GPT-2 architecture and a recurrent model in the form of a novel LSTM with ten-fold throughput.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T10:31:17Z)
• Variable Importance Matching for Causal Inference [73.25504313552516]
  We describe a general framework called Model-to-Match that achieves these goals. Model-to-Match uses variable importance measurements to construct a distance metric. We operationalize the Model-to-Match framework with LASSO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-23T00:43:03Z)
• Measuring the Driving Forces of Predictive Performance: Application to Credit Scoring [0.0]
  We introduce the XPER methodology to decompose a performance metric into contributions associated with a forecasting model.<n>XPER is theoretically grounded on Shapley values and is both model-agnostic and performance metric-agnostic.<n>We show that a small number of features can explain a surprisingly large part of the model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-12T13:09:46Z)

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.