arXiv subjects

Nicholas Pangakis

Publications and source records attributed to Nicholas Pangakis.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

What AI Benchmarks Actually Measure: Adapting Convergent and Discriminant Validity to Interrogate Fifty-Six AI Benchmarks

Benchmarks play a central role in the development and governance of models, yet it is often unclear whether they actually measure the concepts they purport to measure (e.g., reasoning, refusal). We adapt convergent and discriminant validity from the social sciences into an approach for interrogating AI benchmarks, applying it to 56 capability and safety benchmarks across 53 models. We label benchmarks with substantively similar purported concepts to a shared assigned concept, and ask whether model rankings on benchmarks with the same assigned concept correlate more strongly than rankings on benchmarks with different assigned concepts. We ask analogous questions at the item level using item response theory (IRT) models. We find that correlations between model rankings on benchmarks with the same assigned safety concepts are often weak, suggesting these concepts may be conceptualized inconsistently across benchmarks. For assigned capability concepts (e.g., reasoning, knowledge), model rankings are often as strongly correlated among benchmarks with the same assigned concept as between benchmarks with different assigned concepts, suggesting these capability concepts may not discriminate well from one another. In some cases, benchmarks that share design elements (e.g., score format) correlate more strongly than benchmarks with the same assigned concept. Finally, some individual benchmarks correlate more strongly with benchmarks assigned a different concept than with benchmarks sharing their own assigned concept, suggesting they may measure a different concept than they purport to. For example, BBQ-accuracy correlates more strongly with benchmarks labeled reasoning than with benchmarks that share its assigned concept, bias. To support future empirical work on benchmark validity, we release our extensive dataset of model outputs and scores at the item- and benchmark-level.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

ASSERT: A Measurement Pipeline for GenAI Audits

Audits of generative AI (GenAI) systems often summarize behavior as a reported rate: how often the audited system complies with policy. Researchers and stakeholders use that rate to compare systems, track regressions, and gate deployment. A reported rate reflects both the system under audit and the measurement choices behind it, so a change in the rate can leave it unclear whether the system or those choices moved. We introduce ASSERT, a specification-driven measurement pipeline for GenAI audits that ties each reported rate to a written specification of the measurement choices used to produce it. ASSERT helps draft a behavioral rubric and test cases, then runs the audit against a GenAI system and returns a reported rate. In a case study on conversational deception, we observe that the reported rate moves substantially with the dialogue setup, the simulated user, the judge, and the evidence bar for non-compliance. These measurement choices substantially change the reported rate and can reorder GenAI system rankings. Because each reported rate is tied to an explicit specification, differences across audits are easier to attribute and interpret.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Taxonomizing Representational Harms using Speech Act Theory

Representational harms are widely recognized among fairness-related harms caused by generative language systems. However, their definitions are commonly under-specified. We make a theoretical contribution to the specification of representational harms by introducing a framework, grounded in speech act theory (Austin, 1962), that conceptualizes representational harms caused by generative language systems as the perlocutionary effects (i.e., real-world impacts) of particular types of illocutionary acts (i.e., system behaviors). Building on this argument and drawing on relevant literature from linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics, we provide new definitions of stereotyping, demeaning, and erasure. We then use our framework to develop a granular taxonomy of illocutionary acts that cause representational harms, going beyond the high-level taxonomies presented in previous work. We also discuss the ways that our framework and taxonomy can support the development of valid measurement instruments. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of our framework and taxonomy via a case study that engages with recent conceptual debates about what constitutes a representational harm and how such harms should be measured.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Position: Evaluating Generative AI Systems Is a Social Science Measurement Challenge

The measurement tasks involved in evaluating generative AI (GenAI) systems lack sufficient scientific rigor, leading to what has been described as "a tangle of sloppy tests [and] apples-to-oranges comparisons" (Roose, 2024). In this position paper, we argue that the ML community would benefit from learning from and drawing on the social sciences when developing and using measurement instruments for evaluating GenAI systems. Specifically, our position is that evaluating GenAI systems is a social science measurement challenge. 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. This framework has two important implications: First, it can broaden the expertise involved in evaluating GenAI systems by enabling stakeholders with different perspectives to participate in conceptual debates. Second, it brings rigor to both conceptual and operational debates by offering a set of lenses for interrogating validity.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

A Shared Standard for Valid Measurement of Generative AI Systems' Capabilities, Risks, and Impacts

The valid measurement of generative AI (GenAI) systems' capabilities, risks, and impacts forms the bedrock of our ability to evaluate these systems. We introduce a shared standard for valid measurement that helps place many of the disparate-seeming evaluation practices in use today on a common footing. Our framework, grounded in measurement theory from the social sciences, extends the work of Adcock & Collier (2001) in which the authors formalized valid measurement of concepts in political science via three processes: systematizing background concepts, operationalizing systematized concepts via annotation procedures, and applying those procedures to instances. We argue that valid measurement of GenAI systems' capabilities, risks, and impacts, further requires systematizing, operationalizing, and applying not only the entailed concepts, but also the contexts of interest and the metrics used. This involves both descriptive reasoning about particular instances and inferential reasoning about underlying populations, which is the purview of statistics. By placing many disparate-seeming GenAI evaluation practices on a common footing, our framework enables individual evaluations to be better understood, interrogated for reliability and validity, and meaningfully compared. This is an important step in advancing GenAI evaluation practices toward more formalized and theoretically grounded processes -- i.e., toward a science of GenAI evaluations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Evaluating Generative AI Systems is a Social Science Measurement Challenge

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.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Keeping Humans in the Loop: Human-Centered Automated Annotation with Generative AI

Automated text annotation is a compelling use case for generative large language models (LLMs) in social media research. Recent work suggests that LLMs can achieve strong performance on annotation tasks; however, these studies evaluate LLMs on a small number of tasks and likely suffer from contamination due to a reliance on public benchmark datasets. Here, we test a human-centered framework for responsibly evaluating artificial intelligence tools used in automated annotation. We use GPT-4 to replicate 27 annotation tasks across 11 password-protected datasets from recently published computational social science articles in high-impact journals. For each task, we compare GPT-4 annotations against human-annotated ground-truth labels and against annotations from separate supervised classification models fine-tuned on human-generated labels. Although the quality of LLM labels is generally high, we find significant variation in LLM performance across tasks, even within datasets. Our findings underscore the importance of a human-centered workflow and careful evaluation standards: Automated annotations significantly diverge from human judgment in numerous scenarios, despite various optimization strategies such as prompt tuning. Grounding automated annotation in validation labels generated by humans is essential for responsible evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Knowledge Distillation in Automated Annotation: Supervised Text Classification with LLM-Generated Training Labels

Computational social science (CSS) practitioners often rely on human-labeled data to fine-tune supervised text classifiers. We assess the potential for researchers to augment or replace human-generated training data with surrogate training labels from generative large language models (LLMs). We introduce a recommended workflow and test this LLM application by replicating 14 classification tasks and measuring performance. We employ a novel corpus of English-language text classification data sets from recent CSS articles in high-impact journals. Because these data sets are stored in password-protected archives, our analyses are less prone to issues of contamination. For each task, we compare supervised classifiers fine-tuned using GPT-4 labels against classifiers fine-tuned with human annotations and against labels from GPT-4 and Mistral-7B with few-shot in-context learning. Our findings indicate that supervised classification models fine-tuned on LLM-generated labels perform comparably to models fine-tuned with labels from human annotators. Fine-tuning models using LLM-generated labels can be a fast, efficient and cost-effective method of building supervised text classifiers.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Automated Annotation with Generative AI Requires Validation

Generative large language models (LLMs) can be a powerful tool for augmenting text annotation procedures, but their performance varies across annotation tasks due to prompt quality, text data idiosyncrasies, and conceptual difficulty. Because these challenges will persist even as LLM technology improves, we argue that any automated annotation process using an LLM must validate the LLM's performance against labels generated by humans. To this end, we outline a workflow to harness the annotation potential of LLMs in a principled, efficient way. Using GPT-4, we validate this approach by replicating 27 annotation tasks across 11 datasets from recent social science articles in high-impact journals. We find that LLM performance for text annotation is promising but highly contingent on both the dataset and the type of annotation task, which reinforces the necessity to validate on a task-by-task basis. We make available easy-to-use software designed to implement our workflow and streamline the deployment of LLMs for automated annotation.

cs.CL↗