analiza aiqbench
The paper proposes a measurement framework for "artificial wisdom," defined as whether LLM recommendations stay appropriate as decision conditions change, rather than what models can do. The authors are explicit about its limits: the simulations are simplified, the power analysis does not cover the full protocol, and the predecessor study does not validate the instrument. Whether the profile predicts decision outcomes beyond standard capability scores remains open.
Evaluating Artificial Wisdom (AW): A Trajectory-Based Framework for Context-Sensitive Decision Regulation
arXiv:2610.31012v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Capability benchmarks measure what large language models can do, but not whether their recommendations remain appropriate as decision conditions change. This paper proposes a trajectory-based measurement framework and prospective validation protocol for artificial wisdom, defined behaviorally as context-sensitive regulation of judgment. Versioned reference specifications determine admissible responses and transition materiality before evaluation. Seven stage-level criteria assess judgment under current conditions, while two transition components assess material-update adequacy and commitment-preserving stability. Stability requires prior adequacy; switching within registered commitment classes is permitted, and persistent error earns no stability credit. A nine-component profile is primary, with a secondary bottleneck score and separate critical-failure reporting. Three simplified simulations examine precision, bottleneck estimation, and sensitivity to model-family count. A single-criterion simulation met its precision criteria at 24 scenarios per domain. Near a bottleneck tie, the estimated minimum had a downward bias of 0.55 points at that size. A simplified incremental-prediction simulation detected a Brier improvement of 0.027 with probabilities of .508 and .742 using eight and twelve families, respectively; it does not establish power for the operational protocol. An exploratory predecessor-rubric study comprising 71 evaluation records illustrates aggregation sensitivity but does not validate the proposed instrument. The twelve-family target remains provisional pending feasibility assessment and calibration of the complete analysis. Whether the profile predicts independent decision outcomes beyond capability remains an open empirical question.
Abstract:Capability benchmarks measure what large language models can do, but not whether their recommendations remain appropriate as decision conditions change. This paper proposes a trajectory-based measurement framework and prospective validation protocol for artificial wisdom, defined behaviorally as context-sensitive regulation of judgment. Versioned reference specifications determine admissible responses and transition materiality before evaluation. Seven stage-level criteria assess judgment under current conditions, while two transition components assess material-update adequacy and commitment-preserving stability. Stability requires prior adequacy; switching within registered commitment classes is permitted, and persistent error earns no stability credit. A nine-component profile is primary, with a secondary bottleneck score and separate critical-failure reporting. Three simplified simulations examine precision, bottleneck estimation, and sensitivity to model-family count. A single-criterion simulation met its precision criteria at 24 scenarios per domain. Near a bottleneck tie, the estimated minimum had a downward bias of 0.55 points at that size. A simplified incremental-prediction simulation detected a Brier improvement of 0.027 with probabilities of .508 and .742 using eight and twelve families, respectively; it does not establish power for the operational protocol. An exploratory predecessor-rubric study comprising 71 evaluation records illustrates aggregation sensitivity but does not validate the proposed instrument. The twelve-family target remains provisional pending feasibility assessment and calibration of the complete analysis. Whether the profile predicts independent decision outcomes beyond capability remains an open empirical question.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.31012 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.31012v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.31012 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 314 cuvinte