Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluation

While the capabilities and utility of AI systems have advanced, rigorous norms for evaluating these systems have lagged. Grand claims, such as models achieving general reasoning capabilities, are supported with model performance on narrow benchmarks, like performance on graduate-level exam questions, which provide a limited and potentially misleading assessment. We provide a structured approach for reasoning about the types of evaluative claims that can be made given the available evidence. For instance, our framework helps determine whether performance on a mathematical benchmark is an indication of the ability to solve problems on math tests or instead indicates a broader ability to reason. Our framework is well-suited for the contemporary paradigm in machine learning, where various stakeholders provide measurements and evaluations that downstream users use to validate their claims and decisions. At the same time, our framework also informs the construction of evaluations designed to speak to the validity of the relevant claims. By leveraging psychometrics' breakdown of validity, evaluations can prioritize the most critical facets for a given claim, improving empirical utility and decision-making efficacy. We illustrate our framework through detailed case studies of vision and language model evaluations, highlighting how explicitly considering validity strengthens the connection between evaluation evidence and the claims being made.

Independence Tests for Language Models

We consider the following problem: given the weights of two models, can we test whether they were trained independently -- i.e., from independent random initializations? We consider two settings: constrained and unconstrained. In the constrained setting, we make assumptions about model architecture and training and propose a family of statistical tests that yield exact p-values with respect to the null hypothesis that the models are trained from independent random initializations. These p-values are valid regardless of the composition of either model's training data; we compute them by simulating exchangeable copies of each model under our assumptions and comparing various similarity measures of weights and activations between the original two models versus these copies. We report the p-values from these tests on pairs of 21 open-weight models (210 total pairs) and correctly identify all pairs of non-independent models. Our tests remain effective even if one model was fine-tuned for many tokens. In the unconstrained setting, where we make no assumptions about training procedures, can change model architecture, and allow for adversarial evasion attacks, the previous tests no longer work. Instead, we propose a new test which matches hidden activations between two models, and which is robust to adversarial transformations and to changes in model architecture. The test can also do localized testing: identifying specific non-independent components of models. Though we no longer obtain exact p-values from this, empirically we find it behaves as one and reliably identifies non-independent models. Notably, we can use the test to identify specific parts of one model that are derived from another (e.g., how Llama 3.1-8B was pruned to initialize Llama 3.2-3B, or shared layers between Mistral-7B and StripedHyena-7B), and it is even robust to retraining individual layers of either model from scratch.