Metrology for AI: From Benchmarks to Instruments
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In this paper we present the first steps towards hardening the science of measuring AI systems, by adopting metrology, the science of measurement and its application, and applying it to human (crowd) powered evaluations. We begin with the intuitive observation that evaluating the performance of an AI system is a form of measurement. In all other science and engineering disciplines, the devices used to measure are called instruments, and all measurements are recorded with respect to the characteristics of the instruments used. One does not report mass, speed, or length, for example, of a studied object without disclosing the precision (measurement variance) and resolution (smallest detectable change) of the instrument used. It is extremely common in the AI literature to compare the performance of two systems by using a crowd-sourced dataset as an instrument, but failing to report if the performance difference lies within the capability of that instrument to measure. To illustrate the adoption of metrology to benchmark datasets we use the word similarity benchmark WS353 and several previously published experiments that use it for evaluation.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 5 Nov 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 2; 2023: 4; 2024: 3.
12 papers.
- 2023PaLM 2 Technical Reportcited by 1,154
- 2021What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?cited by 200
- 2022DataPerf: Benchmarks for Data-Centric AI Developmentcited by 89
- 2021The Dangers of Underclaiming: Reasons for Caution When Reporting How NLP Systems Failcited by 38
- 2023Evidence of interrelated cognitive-like capabilities in large language models: Indications of artificial general intelligence or achievement?cited by 26
- 2021GENIE: Toward Reproducible and Standardized Human Evaluation for Text Generationcited by 20
- 2024What makes a good metric? Evaluating automatic metrics for text-to-image consistencycited by 11
- 2024Benchmark Data Repositories for Better Benchmarkingcited by 10
- 2023Adversarial Nibbler: A Data-Centric Challenge for Improving the Safety of Text-to-Image Modelscited by 7
- 2023Collect, Measure, Repeat: Reliability Factors for Responsible AI Data Collectioncited by 5
- 2022Evaluation for Changecited by 0
- 2024A quest through interconnected datasets: lessons from highly-cited ICASSP paperscited by 0
- 2024What makes a good metric? Evaluating automatic metrics for text-to-image consistency18 Dec 2024
- 2024Benchmark Data Repositories for Better Benchmarking31 Oct 2024
- 2024A quest through interconnected datasets: lessons from highly-cited ICASSP papers19 Sep 2024
- 2023Evidence of interrelated cognitive-like capabilities in large language models: Indications of artificial general intelligence or achievement?17 Oct 2023
- 2023Collect, Measure, Repeat: Reliability Factors for Responsible AI Data Collection22 Aug 2023
- 2023Adversarial Nibbler: A Data-Centric Challenge for Improving the Safety of Text-to-Image Models22 May 2023
- 2023PaLM 2 Technical Report17 May 2023
- 2022Evaluation for Change20 Dec 2022
- 2022DataPerf: Benchmarks for Data-Centric AI Development20 Jul 2022
- 2021The Dangers of Underclaiming: Reasons for Caution When Reporting How NLP Systems Fail15 Oct 2021
- 2021What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?5 Apr 2021
- 2021GENIE: Toward Reproducible and Standardized Human Evaluation for Text Generation17 Jan 2021