When benchmark inferences do not compose: Projectibility in AI evaluation
Abstract: An AI benchmark result rarely reaches a consequential claim in one step. Evaluators generalize it to further cases, interpret it as evidence of capability, extrapolate it to new tasks, transport it to another system or site, and combine it with assumptions about human review and downstream consequences. Validity-centred approaches require evidence for each claim. This paper identifies a further epistemic problem: warranted links don't automatically make a warranted chain. The target of one study may not be the source of the next; system, population, outcome, or conditions may change at the interface; and shared data or model lineage may make apparently independent support dependent. Projectibility concerns whether a bounded extension from observed to unobserved cases is warranted. Goodman supplies the problem of rival extensions; argument-based validity supplies an architecture for testing them. The paper's distinctive claim is a non-composition principle: support for adjacent projections warrants their composition only when endpoints and assumptions align and dependence and uncertainty are carried through. A legal-research case shows how benchmark evidence and a deployment study can each be sound while remaining parallel. A reanalysis and simulation show why aggregate stability can erase distinctions a later projection requires. The resulting projectibility audit diagnoses unsupported joins in benchmark-to-use arguments.
Submission history
Access Paper:
Current browse context:
References & Citations
BibTeX formatted citation
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .
Verified source · arXiv.org
Reported by arXiv.org. Open the original for full media and formatting.
More in Research
All newsEven More Deception: Objective Misalignment in Mixed-Motive LLM Multi-Agent Systems
Large Language Models (LLMs)-powered multi-agent systems are increasingly deployed in mixed-motive environments, where agents operate under asymmetric information and strategic deception due to conflicting or hidden objectives. In these settings, misalignment with collective goals becomes a central concern. We propose a novel framework for evaluating objective misalignment using the social deduction game Werewolf, modifying the objective of a single agent while preserving its assigned role. Across LLMs from four different model families and sizes, four player roles, and three objective formul…
Read at arXiv cs.AIClinLens: Towards Long-Horizon Coding Agents for Longitudinal Multimodal Clinical Data Science
Clinical data-science agents must transform heterogeneous longitudinal records into auditable analyses, yet existing benchmarks largely isolate medical question answering, structured-table reasoning, or generic scientific repositories. We introduce CLINLENS, a benchmark of 200 executable tasks over five linked MIMIC resources spanning structured electronic health records, notes, electrocardiograms, chest radiographs, and echocardiograms. A 4 x 5 taxonomy crosses four patient-time scopes with five analysis capabilities. Program-first reverse synthesis pairs each bounded semi-raw package with a…
Read at arXiv cs.AIProbing the Origins of Reasoning Performance: Representational Quality for Mathematical Problem-Solving in RL vs. SFT Fine-Tuned Models
Large reasoning models trained via reinforcement learning (RL) have been increasingly shown to outperform their supervised fine-tuned (SFT) counterparts on mathematical reasoning tasks; Yet the mechanistic basis for this advantage remains unclear. We therefore ask, what internal representational differences enable RL models' superior performance? Our work presents two converging lines of evidence: First, linear probes trained on layer-wise hidden states reveal that RL models tend to achieve higher accuracy in predicting answer correctness compared to SFT models, indicating more linearly separ…
Read at arXiv cs.AITraceCoder: Explainable and Auditable Code Generation with Position-Key Snippet Versioning
Contemporary LLM-based coding agents produce code as black-box outputs: the rationale behind each line is hidden, the evolution of the code through benchmark-driven repair is ephemeral, and post-hoc auditing is impossible. We present a code generation concept that addresses these shortcomings through three complementary mechanisms: (i) a relational snippet-history schema that records, per repair event, the benchmark reference, round number, failure text, and LLM explanation, enabling full provenance queries; (ii) a browser-based visualisation tool that renders this history as heat-mapped, hov…
Read at arXiv cs.AI