Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes the validity of attributing human-like capabilities to LLMs based on benchmark performance, focusing on the problem of construct validity. It contrasts three frameworks for construct validity鈥攏omological, inferential, and causal鈥攁nd argues that the nomological account is the most suitable for current LLM capability research. The paper then explores the implications of adopting the nomological account for assessing reasoning capabilities in LLMs.
Claiming LLMs possess human-like reasoning based on benchmarks alone is shaky ground: a nomological network approach offers a more rigorous way to link theoretical capabilities to empirical measurements.
Recent work in machine learning increasingly attributes human-like capabilities such as reasoning or theory of mind to large language models (LLMs) on the basis of benchmark performance. This paper examines this practice through the lens of construct validity, understood as the problem of linking theoretical capabilities to their empirical measurements. It contrasts three influential frameworks: the nomological account developed by Cronbach and Meehl, the inferential account proposed by Messick and refined by Kane, and Borsboom's causal account. I argue that the nomological account provides the most suitable foundation for current LLM capability research. It avoids the strong ontological commitments of the causal account while offering a more substantive framework for articulating construct meaning than the inferential account. I explore the conceptual implications of adopting the nomological account for LLM research through a concrete case: the assessment of reasoning capabilities in LLMs.
