Measuring the Machine: Evaluating Generative AI as Pluralist Sociotechical Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.20545v1
• Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:29:33 GMT
• Title: Measuring the Machine: Evaluating Generative AI as Pluralist Sociotechical Systems
• Abstract summary: The thesis argues that generative AI must be evaluated as a pluralist sociotechnical system.<n>MaSH Loops is a framework for tracing how models, users, and institutions co-construct meaning and values.<n>The World Values Benchmark introduces a distributional approach grounded in World Values Survey data.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In measurement theory, instruments do not simply record reality; they help constitute what is observed. The same holds for generative AI evaluation: benchmarks do not just measure, they shape what models appear to be. Functionalist benchmarks treat models as isolated predictors, while prescriptive approaches assess what systems ought to be. Both obscure the sociotechnical processes through which meaning and values are enacted, risking the reification of narrow cultural perspectives in pluralist contexts. This thesis advances a descriptive alternative. It argues that generative AI must be evaluated as a pluralist sociotechnical system and develops Machine-Society-Human (MaSH) Loops, a framework for tracing how models, users, and institutions recursively co-construct meaning and values. Evaluation shifts from judging outputs to examining how values are enacted in interaction. Three contributions follow. Conceptually, MaSH Loops reframes evaluation as recursive, enactive process. Methodologically, the World Values Benchmark introduces a distributional approach grounded in World Values Survey data, structured prompt sets, and anchor-aware scoring. Empirically, the thesis demonstrates these through two cases: value drift in early GPT-3 and sociotechnical evaluation in real estate. A final chapter draws on participatory realism to argue that prompting and evaluation are constitutive interventions, not neutral observations. The thesis argues that static benchmarks are insufficient for generative AI. Responsible evaluation requires pluralist, process-oriented frameworks that make visible whose values are enacted. Evaluation is therefore a site of governance, shaping how AI systems are understood, deployed, and trusted.

Related papers

• From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape [79.30826980815927]
  rubrics are explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards.<n>We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T13:34:55Z)
• Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Science [90.62695599188204]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as systems that act over time through tools, environments, users, and other agents.<n>The field has begun to build interactive benchmarks, but the resulting landscape is fragmented.<n>This position paper argues that interactive evaluation should be treated as a principled evaluation paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T04:03:18Z)
• Benchmarked Yet Not Measured -- Generative AI Should be Evaluated Against Real-World Utility [9.928824688627037]
  We argue that generative AI evaluation requires a paradigm shift from static benchmark-centered transparency toward stakeholder, goal, and context-conditioned utility transparency grounded in human outcome trajectories.<n>We propose SCU-GenEval, a four-stage evaluation framework consisting of stakeholder-goal mapping, construct-indicator specification, mechanism modeling, and longitudinal utility measurement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T18:56:07Z)
• SHOE: Semantic HOI Open-Vocabulary Evaluation Metric [28.578980275126707]
  We introduce SHOE (Semantic HOI Open-Vocabulary Evaluation), a new evaluation framework.<n> SHOE incorporates semantic similarity between predicted and ground-truth HOI labels.<n>Results show SHOE scores align more closely with human judgments than existing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T03:53:39Z)
• Computational Hermeneutics: Evaluating generative AI as a cultural technology [32.49036529181191]
  We argue that GenAI systems function as "context machines" that must inherently address three interpretive challenges.<n>We offer three principles for hermeneutic evaluation -- that benchmarks should be iterative, not one-off; include people, not just machines; and measure cultural context, not just model output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T12:18:56Z)
• RealUnify: Do Unified Models Truly Benefit from Unification? A Comprehensive Benchmark [71.3555284685426]
  We introduce RealUnify, a benchmark designed to evaluate bidirectional capability synergy.<n>RealUnify comprises 1,000 meticulously human-annotated instances spanning 10 categories and 32 subtasks.<n>We find that current unified models still struggle to achieve effective synergy, indicating that architectural unification alone is insufficient.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T15:07:28Z)
• What Does Your Benchmark Really Measure? A Framework for Robust Inference of AI Capabilities [0.773472615056109]
  Evaluations of generative models on benchmark data are now ubiquitous.<n>Yet growing skepticism surrounds their reliability.<n>How can we know that a reported accuracy genuinely reflects a model's true performance?<n>We make this step explicit by proposing a principled framework for evaluation as inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T21:29:04Z)
• SCAN: Structured Capability Assessment and Navigation for LLMs [54.54085382131134]
  textbfSCAN (Structured Capability Assessment and Navigation) is a practical framework that enables detailed characterization of Large Language Models.<n>SCAN incorporates four key components:.<n>TaxBuilder, which extracts capability-indicating tags from queries to construct a hierarchical taxonomy;.<n>RealMix, a query synthesis and filtering mechanism that ensures sufficient evaluation data for each capability tag;.<n>A PC$2$-based (Pre-Comparison-derived Criteria) LLM-as-a-Judge approach achieves significantly higher accuracy compared to classic LLM-as-a-Judge method
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-10T16:52:40Z)
• The simulation of judgment in LLMs [32.57692724251287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in evaluative processes, from information filtering to assessing and addressing knowledge gaps through explanation and credibility judgments.<n>This raises the need to examine how such evaluations are built, what assumptions they rely on, and how their strategies diverge from those of humans.<n>We benchmark six LLMs against expert ratings--NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check--and against human judgments collected through a controlled experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:52:10Z)
• Demographic Benchmarking: Bridging Socio-Technical Gaps in Bias Detection [0.0]
  This paper describes how the ITACA AI auditing platform tackles demographic benchmarking when auditing AI recommender systems.<n>The framework serves us as auditors as it allows us to not just measure but establish acceptability ranges for specific performance indicators.<n>Our approach integrates socio-demographic insights directly into AI systems, reducing bias and improving overall performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-27T12:14:49Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation for Image Transcreation [52.71090829502756]
  We propose a suite of automatic evaluation metrics inspired by machine translation (MT) metrics.<n>We identify three critical dimensions of image transcreation: cultural relevance, semantic equivalence and visual similarity.<n>Our results show that proprietary VLMs best identify cultural relevance and semantic equivalence, while vision-encoder representations are adept at measuring visual similarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T10:55:58Z)
• Auto-PRE: An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation [52.76508734756661]
  Auto-PRE is an automatic evaluation framework inspired by the peer review process.<n>Unlike previous approaches that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE automatically selects evaluators based on three core traits.<n> Experiments on three representative tasks, including summarization, non-factoid QA, and dialogue generation, demonstrate that Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:06:06Z)
• Evaluating the Social Impact of Generative AI Systems in Systems and Society [43.32010533676472]
  Generative AI systems across modalities, ranging from text (including code), image, audio, and video, have broad social impacts. There is no official standard for means of evaluating those impacts or for which impacts should be evaluated. We present a guide that moves toward a standard approach in evaluating a base generative AI system for any modality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T15:05:13Z)
• Heterogeneous Value Alignment Evaluation for Large Language Models [91.96728871418]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made it crucial to align their values with those of humans. We propose a Heterogeneous Value Alignment Evaluation (HVAE) system to assess the success of aligning LLMs with heterogeneous values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T02:34:20Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)

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.