CIRCLE: A Framework for Evaluating AI from a Real-World Lens
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This study proposes CIRCLE, a six-stage, lifecycle-based framework to bridge the reality gap between model-centric performance metrics and AI system outcomes in deployment. Current approaches such as MLOps frameworks and AI model benchmarks offer detailed insights into system stability and model capabilities, but they do not provide decision makers outside the AI stack with systematic evidence of how these systems actually behave in real world contexts or affect their organizations over time. CIRCLE operationalizes the Validation phase of TEVV (Test, Evaluation, Verification, and Validation) by translating priorities of stakeholders outside the stack into measurable signals. Unlike participatory design which often remains localized, or algorithmic audits which are often retrospective, CIRCLE provides a structured, prospective protocol for linking context sensitive qualitative insights to scalable quantitative metrics. By integrating methods such as field testing, red teaming, and longitudinal studies into a coordinated pipeline, CIRCLE produces systematic knowledge; evidence that is comparable across sites yet sensitive to local context. This can enable governance based on materialized downstream effects rather than theoretical capabilities.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 76 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Feb 2026.
Builds on
25 of 76 references.
References · 25
- 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,366
- 2025Measuring what Matters: Construct Validity in Large Language Model Benchmarkscited by 102
- 2023The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practicecited by 86
- 2025Position: Evaluating Generative AI Systems Is a Social Science Measurement Challengecited by 61
- 2023Rethinking Model Evaluation as Narrowing the Socio-Technical Gapcited by 56
- 2025Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluationcited by 54
- 2025Toward an Evaluation Science for Generative AI Systemscited by 42
- 2021Hard Choices in Artificial Intelligencecited by 26
- 2024Holistic Automated Red Teaming for Large Language Models through Top-Down Test Case Generation and Multi-turn Interactioncited by 25
- 2020Operationalizing the Legal Principle of Data Minimization for Personalizationcited by 19
- 2025Reality Check: A New Evaluation Ecosystem Is Necessary to Understand AI's Real World Effectscited by 18
- 2024A Shared Standard for Valid Measurement of Generative AI Systems' Capabilities, Risks, and Impactscited by 13
13 more
- 2025Understanding Teen Overreliance on AI Companion Chatbots Through Self-Reported Reddit Narrativescited by 12
- 2023Ecosystem-level Analysis of Deployed Machine Learning Reveals Homogeneous Outcomescited by 10
- 2025Simulating Psychological Risks in Human-AI Interactions: Real-Case Informed Modeling of AI-Induced Addiction, Anorexia, Depression, Homicide, Psychosis, and Suicidecited by 10
- 2023From human-centered to social-centered artificial intelligence: Assessing ChatGPT's impact through disruptive eventscited by 8
- 2025Validity in Design Sciencecited by 4
- 2025Exploring How LLMs Capture and Represent Domain-Specific Knowledgecited by 3
- 2025Secondary Stakeholders in AI: Fighting for, Brokering, and Navigating Agencycited by 3
- 2025A Different Approach to AI Safety: Proceedings from the Columbia Convening on Openness in Artificial Intelligence and AI Safetycited by 3
- 2025Limits of Safe AI Deployment: Differentiating Oversight and Controlcited by 3
- 2025Red Teaming AI Red Teamingcited by 3
- 2025Attention to Non-Adopterscited by 3
- 2025Ask What Your Country Can Do For You: Towards a Public Red Teaming Modelcited by 1
- 2026The AI Invisibility Effect: Understanding Human-AI Interaction When Users Don't Recognize Artificial Intelligencecited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.