mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Evaluating Generative AI Systems is a Social Science Measurement Challenge

arXiv 2411.10939 ↗First posted 17 Nov 2024cs.CYcited by 23

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Across academia, industry, and government, there is an increasing awareness that the measurement tasks involved in evaluating generative AI (GenAI) systems are especially difficult. We argue that these measurement tasks are highly reminiscent of measurement tasks found throughout the social sciences. With this in mind, we present a framework, grounded in measurement theory from the social sciences, for measuring concepts related to the capabilities, impacts, opportunities, and risks of GenAI systems. The framework distinguishes between four levels: the background concept, the systematized concept, the measurement instrument(s), and the instance-level measurements themselves. This four-level approach differs from the way measurement is typically done in ML, where researchers and practitioners appear to jump straight from background concepts to measurement instruments, with little to no explicit systematization in between. As well as surfacing assumptions, thereby making it easier to understand exactly what the resulting measurements do and do not mean, this framework has two important implications for evaluating evaluations: First, it can enable stakeholders from different worlds to participate in conceptual debates, broadening the expertise involved in evaluating GenAI systems. Second, it brings rigor to operational debates by offering a set of lenses for interrogating the validity of measurement instruments and their resulting measurements.

Key facts. Cited by 23 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 17 Nov 2024.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 15; 2026: 7.

23 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025Toward an Evaluation Science for Generative AI Systemscited by 45
  2. 2025Correlated Errors in Large Language Modelscited by 45
  3. 2025Neither Valid nor Reliable? Investigating the Use of LLMs as Judgescited by 39
  4. 2025Multi-turn Evaluation of Anthropomorphic Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 25
  5. 2024Machine Unlearning Doesn't Do What You Think: Lessons for Generative AI Policy and Researchcited by 15
  6. 2025HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistantscited by 11
  7. 2025Meaning Is Not A Metric: Using LLMs to make cultural context legible at scalecited by 10
  8. 2025The Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Prioritiescited by 10
  9. 2025TALES: A Taxonomy and Analysis of Cultural Representations in LLM-generated Storiescited by 10
  10. 2025Rigor in AI: Doing Rigorous AI Work Requires a Broader, Responsible AI-Informed Conception of Rigorcited by 7
  11. 2025Understanding, Protecting, and Augmenting Human Cognition with Generative AI: A Synthesis of the CHI 2025 Tools for Thought Workshopcited by 7
  12. 2025Social Bias in Popular Question-Answering Benchmarkscited by 5
11 more
  1. 2025Measuring What Matters: Connecting AI Ethics Evaluations to System Attributes, Hazards, and Harmscited by 5
  2. 2025Distinguishing Task-Specific and General-Purpose AI in Regulationcited by 3
  3. 2025What is a protest anyway? Codebook conceptualization is still a first-order concern in LLM-era classificationcited by 2
  4. 2025Measurement as Bricolage: Examining How Data Scientists Construct Target Variables for Predictive Modeling Taskscited by 1
  5. 2026RLHF May Not Reflect Genuine Preferencescited by 1
  6. 2026AI-Assisted Systematization for Evaluating GenAI Systemscited by 1
  7. 2026Measuring Biological Capabilities and Risks of AI Agentscited by 1
  8. 2026Aligning Recommendations with User Popularity Preferencescited by 0
  9. 2026From Controlled to the Wild: Evaluation of Pentesting Agents for the Real-Worldcited by 0
  10. 2026Healthcare LLM Benchmarks Are Only as Good as Their Explicit Assumptionscited by 0
  11. 2026LLJ Cards: Best practices for the Use of LLMs as Judgescited by 0