What Does an Evaluation License? A Commit-Bound Census of Claim-Relative Inference in Inspect Evals

Hugging Face Daily Papers Papers

Summary

This paper formalizes a claim-replay layer for AI evaluation artifacts and censuses evaluation units, finding that most stop before deterministic inference due to missing historical evidence or semantic grounding.

Evaluation artifacts specify a forward computation: a task, scorer, and reported metric. They do not necessarily license the claim attached to that metric because the historical evidence and alternative semantics needed to replay it may be unbound. We formalize this missing claim-replay layer through a frozen substrate D, a grounded family F, a claim query q, and the resulting identified set. We then census all 124 mechanically eligible Inspect Evals units at a pinned commit. Every unit receives a terminal disposition; 110 stop before deterministic inference because required historical evidence or semantic grounding is unavailable. Where execution closes, exact values, winners, complete orders, and pairwise relations separate by claim resolution and by primary versus review family. The audit therefore returns typed stops, instability witnesses, and stable substructure rather than forcing one evaluator meaning or one robust/not-robust label.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 08/28/26, 03:26 PM

Paper page - What Does an Evaluation License? A Commit-Bound Census of Claim-Relative Inference in Inspect Evals

Source: https://huggingface.co/papers/2608.19269 Published on Aug 25

·

Submitted byhttps://huggingface.co/qxxxxxxxxxxx

qxon Aug 28

Abstract

Evaluationartifactsspecifyaforwardcomputation:atask,scorer,andreportedmetric.Theydonotnecessarilylicensetheclaimattachedtothatmetricbecausethehistoricalevidenceandalternativesemanticsneededtoreplayitmaybeunbound.Weformalizethismissingclaim-replaylayerthroughafrozensubstrateD,agroundedfamilyF,aclaimqueryq,andtheresultingidentifiedset.Wethencensusall124mechanicallyeligibleInspectEvalsunitsatapinnedcommit.Everyunitreceivesaterminaldisposition;110stopbeforedeterministicinferencebecauserequiredhistoricalevidenceorsemanticgroundingisunavailable.Whereexecutioncloses,exactvalues,winners,completeorders,andpairwiserelationsseparatebyclaimresolutionandbyprimaryversusreviewfamily.Theauditthereforereturnstypedstops,instabilitywitnesses,andstablesubstructureratherthanforcingoneevaluatormeaningoronerobust/not-robustlabel.

View arXiv pageView PDFAdd to collection

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2608\.19269

Don’t have the latest CLI?curl \-LsSf https://hf\.co/cli/install\.sh \| bash

Models citing this paper0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.19269 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.19269 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.19269 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to acollectionto link it from this page.

Similar Articles

Evaluation Cards: An Interpretive Layer for AI Evaluation Reporting

Hugging Face Daily Papers

This paper introduces EvalCards, an operational framework that standardizes AI evaluation reporting by composing benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record with interpretive signals for reproducibility, completeness, provenance, risk, and score comparability. The authors deploy a monitoring tool across thousands of models and benchmarks, revealing systematic gaps in current reporting practices.

LURE: Live-Usage Replay Evaluations for Reducing Evaluation Awareness

arXiv cs.CL

This paper proposes LURE (Live-Usage Replay Evaluations), a method for constructing realistic, deployment-like evaluations of large language models by replaying real agentic interaction trajectories and appending evaluation prompts, reducing the detectability of evaluations compared to existing benchmarks.

The Evaluation Trap: Benchmark Design as Theoretical Commitment

arXiv cs.AI

This paper identifies the 'evaluation trap' where AI benchmarks inadvertently stabilize dominant paradigms by narrowing what counts as progress, and introduces Epistematics, a meta-evaluative methodology to ensure evaluation criteria discriminate true capability from proxy behaviors.