Lorenzo Pacchiardi

Frontier AI is becoming critical societal infrastructure, but outsiders lack reliable ways to judge whether leading developers’ safety and security claims are accurate and whether their practices meet relevant standards. Compared to other social and technological systems we rely on daily such as consumer products, corporate financial statements, and food supply chains, AI is subject to less rigorous third-party scrutiny along several dimensions. Ambiguity about whether AI systems are trustworthy can discourage deployment in some contexts where the technology could be beneficial, and make it more likely when it’s dangerous. Public transparency alone cannot close this gap: many safety- and security-relevant details are legitimately confidential and require expert interpretation. We define frontier AI auditing as rigorous third-party verification of frontier AI developers’ safety and security claims, and evaluation of their systems and practices against relevant standards, based on deep, secure access to non-public information. To make rigor legible and comparable, we introduce AI Assurance Levels (AAL-1 to AAL-4), ranging from time-bounded system audits to continuous, deception-resilient verification.

We propose a framework for categorising AI models as General-Purpose AI (GPAI) models, based on their capabilities and generality, as defined in the European Union (EU) AI Act. Our framework breaks down the core components of the GPAI definition into measurable elements, focusing on four primary cognitive domains: Attention and Scan, Comprehension and Compositional Expression, Conceptualisation, Learning and Abstraction, and Quantitative and Logical Reasoning. We suggest using the Annotated Demand Levels (ADeLe) procedure to evaluate AI models’ capabilities in these domains, and provide a methodology for combining domain-level scores into a single measure of generality. The framework is illustrated with empirical results from existing models, and policy recommendations are made for selecting thresholds and metrics for GPAI categorisation.

Data science aims to extract insights from data to support decision-making processes. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as assistants for data science, by suggesting ideas, techniques and small code snippets, or for the interpretation of results and reporting. Proper automation of some data-science activities is now promised by the rise of LLM agents, i.e., AI systems powered by an LLM equipped with additional affordances—such as code execution and knowledge bases—that can perform self-directed actions and interact with digital environments. In this paper, we survey the evaluation of LLM assistants and agents for data science. We find (1) a dominant focus on a small subset of goal-oriented activities, largely ignoring data management and exploratory activities; (2) a concentration on pure assistance or fully autonomous agents, without considering intermediate levels of human-AI collaboration; and (3) an emphasis on human substitution, therefore neglecting the possibility of higher levels of automation thanks to task transformation.

Ensuring safe and effective use of AI requires understanding and anticipating its performance on novel tasks, from advanced scientific challenges to transformed workplace activities. So far, benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems, given the low transferability across diverse tasks. In this paper, we introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure, extract ability profiles of AI systems, and predict their performance for new task instances, in- and out-of-distribution. Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate. Illustrated for 15 large language models and 63 tasks, high explanatory power is unleashed from inspecting the demand and ability profiles, bringing insights on the sensitivity and specificity exhibited by different benchmarks, and how knowledge, metacognition and reasoning are affected by model size, chain-of-thought and distillation. Surprisingly, high predictive power at the instance level becomes possible using these demand levels, providing superior estimates over black-box baseline predictors based on embeddings or finetuning, especially in out-of-distribution settings (new tasks and new benchmarks). The scales, rubrics, battery, techniques and results presented here represent a major step for AI evaluation, underpinning the reliable deployment of AI in the years ahead.

Despite possessing impressive skills, Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail unpredictably, demonstrating inconsistent success in even basic common sense reasoning tasks. This unpredictability poses a significant challenge to ensuring their safe deployment, as identifying and operating within a reliable "safe zone" is essential for mitigating risks. To address this, we present PredictaBoard, a novel collaborative benchmarking framework designed to evaluate the ability of score predictors (referred to as assessors) to anticipate LLM errors on specific task instances (i.e., prompts) from existing datasets. PredictaBoard evaluates pairs of LLMs and assessors by considering the rejection rate at different tolerance errors. As such, PredictaBoard stimulates research into developing better assessors and making LLMs more predictable, not only with a higher average performance. We conduct illustrative experiments using baseline assessors and state-of-the-art LLMs. PredictaBoard highlights the critical need to evaluate predictability alongside performance, paving the way for safer AI systems where errors are not only minimised but also anticipated and effectively mitigated.

Research in AI evaluation has grown increasingly complex and multidisciplinary, attracting researchers with diverse backgrounds and objectives. As a result, divergent evaluation paradigms have emerged, often developing in isolation, adopting conflicting terminologies, and overlooking each other’s contributions. This fragmentation has led to insular research trajectories and communication barriers both among different paradigms and with the general public, contributing to unmet expectations for deployed AI systems. To help bridge this insularity, in this paper we survey recent work in the AI evaluation landscape and identify six main paradigms. We characterise major recent contributions within each paradigm across key dimensions related to their goals, methodologies and research cultures. By clarifying the unique combination of questions and approaches associated with each paradigm, we aim to increase awareness of the breadth of current evaluation approaches and foster cross-pollination between different paradigms. We also identify potential gaps in the field to inspire future research directions.

Large language models (LLMs) can "lie", which we define as outputting false statements despite "knowing" the truth in a demonstrable sense. LLMs might "lie", for example, when instructed to output misinformation. Here, we develop a simple lie detector that requires neither access to the LLM’s activations (black-box) nor ground-truth knowledge of the fact in question. The detector works by asking a predefined set of unrelated follow-up questions after a suspected lie, and feeding the LLM’s yes/no answers into a logistic regression classifier. Despite its simplicity, this lie detector is highly accurate and surprisingly general. When trained on examples from a single setting – prompting GPT-3.5 to lie about factual questions – the detector generalises out-of-distribution to (1) other LLM architectures, (2) LLMs fine-tuned to lie, (3) sycophantic lies, and (4) lies emerging in real-life scenarios such as sales. These results indicate that LLMs have distinctive lie-related behavioural patterns, consistent across architectures and contexts, which could enable general-purpose lie detection.