SEED-SET: Scalable Evolving Experimental Design for System-level Ethical Testing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01630v1
• Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2026 09:06:28 GMT
• Title: SEED-SET: Scalable Evolving Experimental Design for System-level Ethical Testing
• Authors: Anjali Parashar, Yingke Li, Eric Yang Yu, Fei Chen, James Neidhoefer, Devesh Upadhyay, Chuchu Fan,
• Abstract summary: SEED-SET is an experimental design framework that incorporates domain-specific objective evaluations, and subjective value judgments from stakeholders.<n>We validate our approach for ethical benchmarking of autonomous agents on two applications and find our method to perform the best.
• Score: 17.31500098002456
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As autonomous systems such as drones, become increasingly deployed in high-stakes, human-centric domains, it is critical to evaluate the ethical alignment since failure to do so imposes imminent danger to human lives, and long term bias in decision-making. Automated ethical benchmarking of these systems is understudied due to the lack of ubiquitous, well-defined metrics for evaluation, and stakeholder-specific subjectivity, which cannot be modeled analytically. To address these challenges, we propose SEED-SET, a Bayesian experimental design framework that incorporates domain-specific objective evaluations, and subjective value judgments from stakeholders. SEED-SET models both evaluation types separately with hierarchical Gaussian Processes, and uses a novel acquisition strategy to propose interesting test candidates based on learnt qualitative preferences and objectives that align with the stakeholder preferences. We validate our approach for ethical benchmarking of autonomous agents on two applications and find our method to perform the best. Our method provides an interpretable and efficient trade-off between exploration and exploitation, by generating up to $2\times$ optimal test candidates compared to baselines, with $1.25\times$ improvement in coverage of high dimensional search spaces.

Related papers

• Principled Design of Interpretable Automated Scoring for Large-Scale Educational Assessments [2.2219355720968967]
  AnalyticScore operates by extracting explicitly identifiable elements of the responses and featurizing each response into human-interpretable values.<n>AnalyticScore is within only 0.06 QWK of the uninterpretable SOTA on average across 10 items from the ASAP-SAS dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-21T09:19:05Z)
• Limitations of Current Evaluation Practices for Conversational Recommender Systems and the Potential of User Simulation [19.14733504795247]
  This paper critically examines current evaluation practices for conversational recommender systems (CRSs)<n>We identify two key limitations: the over-reliance on static test collections and the inadequacy of existing evaluation metrics.<n>We propose novel evaluation metrics, based on a general reward/cost framework, designed to better align with real user satisfaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T07:12:47Z)
• STARec: An Efficient Agent Framework for Recommender Systems via Autonomous Deliberate Reasoning [54.28691219536054]
  We introduce STARec, a slow-thinking augmented agent framework that endows recommender systems with autonomous deliberative reasoning capabilities.<n>We develop anchored reinforcement training - a two-stage paradigm combining structured knowledge distillation from advanced reasoning models with preference-aligned reward shaping.<n>Experiments on MovieLens 1M and Amazon CDs benchmarks demonstrate that STARec achieves substantial performance gains compared with state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-26T08:47:58Z)
• CPO: Addressing Reward Ambiguity in Role-playing Dialogue via Comparative Policy Optimization [53.79487826635141]
  Reinforcement Learning Fine-Tuning (RLFT) has achieved notable success in tasks with objectively verifiable answers.<n>But it struggles with open-ended subjective tasks like role-playing dialogue.<n>Traditional reward modeling approaches, which rely on independent sample-wise scoring, face dual challenges: subjective evaluation criteria and unstable reward signals.<n>Motivated by the insight that human evaluation inherently combines explicit criteria with implicit comparative judgments, we propose Comparative Policy Optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T16:49:18Z)
• Evaluating AI Alignment in Eleven LLMs through Output-Based Analysis and Human Benchmarking [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in psychological research and practice, yet traditional benchmarks reveal little about the values they express in real interaction.<n>We introduce PAPERS, output-based evaluation of the values LLMs express.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T20:14:02Z)
• Bounded Rationality for LLMs: Satisficing Alignment at Inference-Time [52.230936493691985]
  We propose SITAlign, an inference framework that addresses the multifaceted nature of alignment by maximizing a primary objective while satisfying threshold-based constraints on secondary criteria.<n>We provide theoretical insights by deriving sub-optimality bounds of our satisficing based inference alignment approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:56:05Z)
• T2I-Eval-R1: Reinforcement Learning-Driven Reasoning for Interpretable Text-to-Image Evaluation [60.620408007636016]
  We propose T2I-Eval-R1, a novel reinforcement learning framework that trains open-source MLLMs using only coarse-grained quality scores.<n>Our approach integrates Group Relative Policy Optimization into the instruction-tuning process, enabling models to generate both scalar scores and interpretable reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T13:44:59Z)
• On the Role of Feedback in Test-Time Scaling of Agentic AI Workflows [71.92083784393418]
  Agentic AI (systems that autonomously plan and act) are becoming widespread, yet their task success rate on complex tasks remains low.<n>Inference-time alignment relies on three components: sampling, evaluation, and feedback.<n>We introduce Iterative Agent Decoding (IAD), a procedure that repeatedly inserts feedback extracted from different forms of critiques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T17:40:47Z)
• Beyond Black-Box Benchmarking: Observability, Analytics, and Optimization of Agentic Systems [1.415098516077151]
  The rise of agentic AI systems, where agents collaborate to perform diverse tasks, poses new challenges with observing, analyzing and optimizing their behavior.<n>Traditional evaluation and benchmarking approaches struggle to handle the non-deterministic, context-sensitive, and dynamic nature of these systems.<n>This paper explores key challenges and opportunities in analyzing and optimizing agentic systems across development, testing, and maintenance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T20:02:04Z)
• Towards Objective and Unbiased Decision Assessments with LLM-Enhanced Hierarchical Attention Networks [6.520709313101523]
  This work investigates cognitive bias identification in high-stake decision making process by human experts. We propose bias-aware AI-augmented workflow that surpass human judgment. In our experiments, both the proposed model and the agentic workflow significantly improves on both human judgment and alternative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T10:42:11Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation [92.51773744318119]
  This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T16:55:37Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)

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.