Daniel Romero-Alvarado

Peter Romero, Fernando Martínez-Plumed, Zachary R. Tyler et al.

Comparing AI models to "human level" is often misleading when benchmark scores are incommensurate or human baselines are drawn from a narrow population. To address this, we propose a framework that calibrates items against the 'world population' and report performance on a common, human-anchored scale. Concretely, we build on a set of multi-level scales for different capabilities where each level should represent a probability of success of the whole world population on a logarithmic scale with a base $B$. We calibrate each scale for each capability (reasoning, comprehension, knowledge, volume, etc.) by compiling publicly released human test data spanning education and reasoning benchmarks (PISA, TIMSS, ICAR, UKBioBank, and ReliabilityBench). The base $B$ is estimated by extrapolating between samples with two demographic profiles using LLMs, with the hypothesis that they condense rich information about human populations. We evaluate the quality of different mappings using group slicing and post-stratification. The new techniques allow for the recalibration and standardization of scales relative to the whole-world population.

Daniel Romero-Alvarado, Fernando Martínez-Plumed, Lorenzo Pacchiardi et al.

AI evaluation has primarily focused on measuring capabilities, with formal approaches inspired from Item Response Theory (IRT) being increasingly applied. Yet propensities - the tendencies of models to exhibit particular behaviours - play a central role in determining both performance and safety outcomes. However, traditional IRT describes a model's success on a task as a monotonic function of model capabilities and task demands, an approach unsuited to propensities, where both excess and deficiency can be problematic. Here, we introduce the first formal framework for measuring AI propensities by using a bilogistic formulation for model success, which attributes high success probability when the model's propensity is within an "ideal band". Further, we estimate the limits of the ideal band using LLMs equipped with newly developed task-agnostic rubrics. Applying our framework to six families of LLM models whose propensities are incited in either direction, we find that we can measure how much the propensity is shifted and what effect this has on the tasks. Critically, propensities estimated using one benchmark successfully predict behaviour on held-out tasks. Moreover, we obtain stronger predictive power when combining propensities and capabilities than either separately. More broadly, our framework showcases how rigorous propensity measurements can be conducted and how it yields gains over solely using capability evaluations to predict AI behaviour.

Daniel Romero-Alvarado, Fernando Martínez-Plumed, José Hernández-Orallo

An AI assessor is an external, ideally indepen-dent system that predicts an indicator, e.g., a loss value, of another AI system. Assessors can lever-age information from the test results of many other AI systems and have the flexibility of be-ing trained on any loss function or scoring rule: from squared error to toxicity metrics. Here we address the question: is it always optimal to train the assessor for the target metric? Or could it be better to train for a different metric and then map predictions back to the target metric? Us-ing twenty regression and classification problems with tabular data, we experimentally explore this question for, respectively, regression losses and classification scores with monotonic and non-monotonic mappings and find that, contrary to intuition, optimising for more informative met-rics is not generally better. Surprisingly, some monotonic transformations are promising. For example, the logistic loss is useful for minimis-ing absolute or quadratic errors in regression, and the logarithmic score helps maximise quadratic or spherical scores in classification.