Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

What Makes an Evaluation Useful? Common Pitfalls and Best Practices

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.23424 v1 pith:JAG7JOBO submitted 2025-03-30 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CLcs.CRcs.CY

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CLcs.CRcs.CY
keywords evaluationevaluationsbestbuildingcapabilitiesmodelpracticessafety
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Following the rapid increase in Artificial Intelligence (AI) capabilities in recent years, the AI community has voiced concerns regarding possible safety risks. To support decision-making on the safe use and development of AI systems, there is a growing need for high-quality evaluations of dangerous model capabilities. While several attempts to provide such evaluations have been made, a clear definition of what constitutes a "good evaluation" has yet to be agreed upon. In this practitioners' perspective paper, we present a set of best practices for safety evaluations, drawing on prior work in model evaluation and illustrated through cybersecurity examples. We first discuss the steps of the initial thought process, which connects threat modeling to evaluation design. Then, we provide the characteristics and parameters that make an evaluation useful. Finally, we address additional considerations as we move from building specific evaluations to building a full and comprehensive evaluation suite.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Preliminary suggestions for rigorous GPAI model evaluations

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A RAND team turned a 64-paper literature review into a preliminary best-practice checklist for rigorously evaluating general-purpose AI models.

Pith tools