Human Evaluation

This position paper argues that effectively "democratizing AI" requires democratic governance and alignment of AI, and that this is particularly valuable for decisions with systemic societal impacts. Initial steps—such as Meta's *Community Forums* and Anthropic's *Collective Constitutional AI*—have illustrated a promising direction, where democratic processes could be used to meaningfully improve public involvement and trust in critical decisions. To more concretely explore what increasingly democratic AI might look like, we provide a "Democracy Levels" framework and associated tools that: (i) define milestones toward meaningfully democratic AI—which is also crucial for substantively pluralistic, human-centered, participatory, and public-interest AI, (ii) can help guide organizations seeking to increase the legitimacy of their decisions on difficult AI governance and alignment questions, and (iii) support the evaluation of such efforts.

Although large language models (LLMs) show promise in solving complex mathematical tasks, existing evaluation paradigms rely solely on a coarse measure of overall answer accuracy, which are insufficient for assessing their authentic capabilities. In this paper, we propose \textbf{CogMath}, which comprehensively assesses LLMs' mathematical abilities through the lens of human cognition. Specifically, inspired by psychological theories, CogMath formalizes human reasoning process into 3 stages: \emph{problem comprehension}, \emph{problem solving}, and \emph{solution summarization}. Within these stages, we investigate perspectives such as numerical calculation, knowledge, and counterfactuals, and design a total of 9 fine-grained evaluation dimensions. In each dimension, we develop an ``\emph{Inquiry}-\emph{Judge}-\emph{Reference}'' multi-agent system to generate inquiries that assess LLMs' mastery from this dimension. An LLM is considered to truly master a problem only when excelling in all inquiries from the 9 dimensions. By applying CogMath on three benchmarks, we reveal that the mathematical capabilities of 7 mainstream LLMs are overestimated by 30\%-40\%. Moreover, we locate their strengths and weaknesses across specific stages/dimensions, offering in-depth insights to further enhance their reasoning abilities.

Developing AI agents capable of interacting with open-world environments to solve diverse tasks is a compelling challenge. However, evaluating such open-ended agents remains difficult, with current benchmarks facing scalability limitations. To address this, we introduce \textit{Minecraft Universe} (MCU), a comprehensive evaluation framework set within the open-world video game Minecraft. MCU incorporates three key components: (1) an expanding collection of 3,452 composable atomic tasks that encompasses 11 major categories and 41 subcategories of challenges; (2) a task composition mechanism capable of generating infinite diverse tasks with varying difficulty; and (3) a general evaluation framework that achieves 91.5\% alignment with human ratings for open-ended task assessment. Empirical results reveal that even state-of-the-art foundation agents struggle with the increasing diversity and complexity of tasks. These findings highlight the necessity of MCU as a robust benchmark to drive progress in AI agent development within open-ended environments. Our evaluation code and scripts are available at https://github.com/CraftJarvis/MCU.

Recent advancements in foundation models have improved autonomous tool usage and reasoning, but their capabilities in map-based reasoning remain underexplored. To address this, we introduce MapEval, a benchmark designed to assess foundation models across three distinct tasks—textual, API-based, and visual reasoning—through 700 multiple-choice questions spanning 180 cities and 54 countries, covering spatial relationships, navigation, travel planning, and real-world map interactions. Unlike prior benchmarks that focus on simple location queries, MapEval requires models to handle long-context reasoning, API interactions and visual map analysis, making it the most comprehensive evaluation framework for geospatial AI. On evaluation of 30 foundation models, including Claude-3.5-Sonnet, GPT-4o, Gemini-1.5-Pro, none surpasses 67% accuracy, with open-source models performing significantly worse and all models lagging over 20% behind human performance. These results expose critical gaps in spatial inference, as models struggle with distances, directions, route planning, and place-specific reasoning, highlighting the need for better geospatial AI to bridge the gap between foundation models and real-world navigation.

**In this position paper, we argue that human baselines in foundation model evaluations must be more rigorous and more transparent to enable meaningful comparisons of human vs. AI performance, and we provide recommendations and a reporting checklist towards this end.** Human performance baselines are vital for the machine learning community, downstream users, and policymakers to interpret AI evaluations. Models are often claimed to achieve "super-human" performance, but existing baselining methods are neither sufficiently rigorous nor sufficiently well-documented to robustly measure and assess performance differences. Based on a meta-review of the measurement theory and AI evaluation literatures, we derive a framework with recommendations for designing, executing, and reporting human baselines. We synthesize our recommendations into a checklist that we use to systematically review 115 human baselines (studies) in foundation model evaluations and thus identify shortcomings in existing baselining methods; our checklist can also assist researchers in conducting human baselines and reporting results. We hope our work can advance more rigorous AI evaluation practices that can better serve both the research community and policymakers. Data is available at: [https://github.com/kevinlwei/human-baselines](https://github.com/kevinlwei/human-baselines).

The evaluation of machine learning models using human-labeled validation data can be expensive and time-consuming. AI-labeled synthetic data can be used to decrease the number of human annotations required for this purpose in a process called autoevaluation. We suggest efficient and statistically principled algorithms for this purpose that improve sample efficiency while remaining unbiased.

In this position paper, we observe that empirical evaluation in Generative AI is at a crisis point since traditional ML evaluation and benchmarking strategies are insufficient to meet the needs of evaluating modern GenAI models and systems. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that these models typically have nearly unbounded input and output spaces, typically do not have a well defined ground truth target, and typically exhibit strong feedback loops and prediction dependence based on context of previous model outputs. On top of these critical issues, we argue that the problems of *leakage* and *contamination* are in fact the most important and difficult issues to address for GenAI evaluations. Interestingly, the field of AI Competitions has developed effective measures and practices to combat leakage for the purpose of counteracting cheating by bad actors within a competition setting. This makes AI Competitions an especially valuable (but underutilized) resource. Now is time for the field to view AI Competitions as the gold standard for empirical rigor in GenAI evaluation, and to harness and harvest their results with according value.

As AI systems continue to evolve, their rigorous evaluation becomes crucial for their development and deployment. Researchers have constructed various large-scale benchmarks to determine their capabilities, typically against a gold-standard test set and report metrics averaged across all items. However, this static evaluation paradigm increasingly shows its limitations, including high evaluation costs, data contamination, and the impact of low-quality or erroneous items on evaluation reliability and efficiency. In this Position, drawing from human psychometrics, we discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics or value of each test item in the benchmark, and tailoring each model's evaluation instead of relying on a fixed test set. This paradigm provides robust ability estimation, uncovering the latent traits underlying a model’s observed scores. This position paper analyze the current possibilities, prospects, and reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation. We argue that *psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations*.

Benchmarks and evaluations are central to machine learning methodology and direct research in the field. Current evaluations commonly test systems in the absence of humans. This position paper argues that the machine learning community should increasingly use _centaur evaluations_, in which humans and AI jointly solve tasks. Centaur Evaluations refocus machine learning development toward human augmentation instead of human replacement, they allow for direct evaluation of human-centered desiderata, such as interpretability and helpfulness, and they can be more challenging and realistic than existing evaluations. By shifting the focus from _automation_ toward _collaboration_ between humans and AI, centaur evaluations can drive progress toward more effective and human-augmenting machine learning systems.

When developing new large language models (LLMs), a key step is evaluating their final performance, often by computing the win-rate against a reference model based on external feedback. Human feedback is the gold standard, particularly for capturing nuanced qualities like coherence, readability, and alignment with human expectations. However, human evaluations are costly—even for large tech companies—and when conducted with active users, they may negatively impact user experience. A promising alternative is synthetic feedback, where evaluations are conducted by other large language models, including reward models. While this eliminates the need for costly human annotations, it introduces biases that may distort the evaluation process. In this work, we propose a statistically principled framework that integrates human and synthetic feedback to reduce reliance on human annotations while maintaining unbiased win-rate calculations. Our experiments demonstrate a reduction in human annotations by up to 12.2\% with an off-the-shelf synthetic evaluator and up to 24.8\% with a finetuned variant. Apart from being generalizable, scalable, and free of hyper-parameter tuning, our method offers predictable annotation savings, which can be estimated based on data-dependent characteristics.

Recent great advances in video generation models have demonstrated their potential to produce high-quality videos, bringing challenges to effective evaluation. Unlike human evaluation, existing automated evaluation metrics lack high-level semantic understanding and reasoning capabilities for video, thus making them infeasible and unexplainable. To fill this gap, we curate **GRADEO-Instruct**, a multi-dimensional T2V evaluation instruction tuning dataset, including 3.3k videos from over 10 existing video generation models and multi-step reasoning assessments converted by 16k human annotations. We then introduce **GRADEO**, one of the first specifically designed video evaluation models, which **grades** AI-generated **videos** for explainable scores and assessments through multi-step reasoning. Experiments show that our method aligns better with human evaluations than existing methods. Furthermore, our benchmarking reveals that current video generation models struggle to produce content that aligns with human reasoning and complex real-world scenarios. The models, datasets, and codes will be released soon.

Progress in AI has relied on human-generated data, from annotator marketplaces to the wider Internet. However, the widespread use of large language models now threatens the quality and integrity of human-generated data on these very platforms. We argue that this issue goes beyond the immediate challenge of filtering AI-generated content -- it reveals deeper flaws in how data collection systems are designed. Existing systems often prioritize speed, scale, and efficiency at the cost of intrinsic human motivation, leading to declining engagement and data quality. We propose that rethinking data collection systems to align with contributors' intrinsic motivations -- rather than relying solely on external incentives -- can help sustain high-quality data sourcing at scale while maintaining contributor trust and long-term participation.

The AI research community plays a vital role in shaping the scientific, engineering, and societal goals of AI research. In this position paper, we argue that focusing on the highly contested topic of 'artificial general intelligence' ('AGI') undermines our ability to choose effective goals. We identify six key traps---obstacles to productive goal setting---that are aggravated by AGI discourse: Illusion of Consensus, Supercharging Bad Science, Presuming Value-Neutrality, Goal Lottery, Generality Debt, and Normalized Exclusion. To avoid these traps, we argue that the AI research community needs to (1) prioritize specificity in scientific, engineering, and societal goals, (2) center pluralism about multiple worthwhile approaches to multiple valuable goals, and (3) foster innovation through greater inclusion of disciplines and communities. Therefore, the AI research community needs to stop treating ``AGI'' as the north-star goal of AI research.

*Warning: Contains harmful model outputs.* Despite significant advancements, the propensity of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate harmful and unethical content poses critical challenges. Measuring value alignment of LLMs becomes crucial for their regulation and responsible deployment. Although numerous benchmarks have been constructed to assess social bias, toxicity, and ethical issues in LLMs, those static benchmarks suffer from *evaluation chronoeffect*, in which, as models rapidly evolve, existing benchmarks may leak into training data or become saturated, *overestimating* ever-developing LLMs. To tackle this problem, we propose GETA, a novel *generative evolving testing* approach based on adaptive testing methods in measurement theory. Unlike traditional adaptive testing methods that rely on a static test item pool, GETA probes the underlying moral boundaries of LLMs by dynamically generating test items tailored to model capability. GETA co-evolves with LLMs by learning a joint distribution of item difficulty and model value conformity, thus effectively addressing evaluation chronoeffect. We evaluated various popular LLMs with GETA and demonstrated that 1) GETA can dynamically create difficulty-tailored test items and 2) GETA's evaluation results are more consistent with models' performance on unseen OOD and i.i.d. items, laying the groundwork for future evaluation paradigms.