AI-Assisted Systematization for Evaluating GenAI Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.26001v1
• Date: Mon, 25 May 2026 16:19:44 GMT
• Title: AI-Assisted Systematization for Evaluating GenAI Systems
• Abstract summary: We develop two AI-assisted systematizers to produce concept specs for two concepts.<n>We evaluate resulting concept specs on content validity and information recoverability.
• Score: 45.6388922756291
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating generative AI (GenAI) systems is challenging because many targets of evaluation are broad, contested concepts, such as "reasoning," "fairness," or "creativity." When these concepts are left underspecified, it becomes unclear what should be measured or how evaluation results should be interpreted. This problem reflects a missing step: systematization, that is, moving from a broad background concept to an explicit, structured account of the concept in measurable terms. To help address the fact that systematization is cognitively demanding and resource-intensive, we investigate whether AI assistance can support this process. To enable AI-assisted systematization and assess its quality, we introduce a structured representation of a systematized concept, a concept spec, and a validation worksheet. We then develop two AI-assisted systematizers: a direct, zero-shot approach and a multi-agent approach that more closely mirrors manual systematization approaches from existing literature. We use these systematizers to produce concept specs for two concepts -- hate-based rhetoric and digital empathy -- and evaluate resulting concept specs on content validity and information recoverability.

Related papers

• A Survey of Reasoning in Autonomous Driving Systems: Open Challenges and Emerging Paradigms [49.66022971508878]
  We argue that reasoning should be elevated from a modular component to the system's cognitive core.<n>We derive and systematize seven core reasoning challenges, such as the responsiveness-reasoning trade-off and social-game reasoning.<n>We identify a fundamental and unresolved tension between the high-latency, deliberative nature of LLM-based reasoning and the millisecond-scale, safety-critical demands of vehicle control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T07:40:53Z)
• Just aware enough: Evaluating awareness across artificial systems [0.0]
  We argue that awareness offers a more productive and methodologically tractable alternative to AI consciousness.<n>We introduce a practical method for evaluating awareness across diverse systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T11:39:35Z)
• Explainability Through Systematicity: The Hard Systematicity Challenge for Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  This paper argues that explainability is only one facet of a broader ideal that shapes our expectations towards artificial intelligence (AI)<n>I offer a conceptual framework for thinking about "the systematicity of thought" that distinguishes four senses of the phrase.<n>To determine whether we have reason to hold AI models to this ideal of systematicity, I then argue, we must look to the rationales for systematization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-29T19:50:21Z)
• 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)
• Position: Evaluating Generative AI Systems Is a Social Science Measurement Challenge [78.35388859345056]
  We argue that the ML community would benefit from learning from and drawing on the social sciences when developing measurement instruments for evaluating GenAI systems.<n>We present a four-level framework, grounded in measurement theory from the social sciences, for measuring concepts related to the capabilities, behaviors, and impacts of GenAI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T21:09:51Z)
• Towards Human Cognition Level-based Experiment Design for Counterfactual Explanations (XAI) [68.8204255655161]
  The emphasis of XAI research appears to have turned to a more pragmatic explanation approach for better understanding. An extensive area where cognitive science research may substantially influence XAI advancements is evaluating user knowledge and feedback. We propose a framework to experiment with generating and evaluating the explanations on the grounds of different cognitive levels of understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T19:20:22Z)
• Evaluating Understanding on Conceptual Abstraction Benchmarks [0.0]
  A long-held objective in AI is to build systems that understand concepts in a humanlike way. We argue that understanding a concept requires the ability to use it in varied contexts. Our concept-based approach to evaluation reveals information about AI systems that conventional test sets would have left hidden.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-28T17:52:46Z)
• A Human-Centric Assessment Framework for AI [11.065260433086024]
  There is no agreed standard on how explainable AI systems should be assessed. Inspired by the Turing test, we introduce a human-centric assessment framework. This setup can serve as framework for a wide range of human-centric AI system assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T12:59:13Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)
• Towards an Interface Description Template for AI-enabled Systems [77.34726150561087]
  Reuse is a common system architecture approach that seeks to instantiate a system architecture with existing components. There is currently no framework that guides the selection of necessary information to assess their portability to operate in a system different than the one for which the component was originally purposed. We present ongoing work on establishing an interface description template that captures the main information of an AI-enabled component.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-13T20:30:26Z)

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.