Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper introduces the Stakeholder Grounding Exercise, a method to evaluate the alignment of text embeddings with human expert understanding by comparing embedding-derived semantic distances to explicit stakeholder associations. Through case studies on Danish policy and US Federal AI use cases, they find a significant gap (16-26 percentage points) between the reliability of neural text embeddings and human experts in capturing relevant semantic distinctions. This misalignment is shown to propagate to downstream clustering performance, highlighting the need for grounding embedding models in human understanding.
Text embeddings might be leading you astray: they're substantially less reliable than human experts in capturing semantic nuances critical for policy analysis and AI use case understanding.
Text embeddings are widely used to analyse large corpora of complex texts. However, it is unclear whether the embeddings capture the same semantic distances as the human experts using them. Ensuring alignment between embedding representations and human intentions is essential for valid analyses. We present the Stakeholder Grounding Exercise, a method for making expert associations explicit and grounding embedding model results in human understanding. In our primary case study on Danish policy issues, we find that neural text embeddings are substantially less reliable than human experts (19-26 pp gap), and that this misalignment propagates to downstream clustering performance (Spearman $\rho=0.9$ between exercise ranking and cluster quality). A secondary study on US Federal AI use cases replicates the gap (16pp) in English, using a digital protocol and a different community of experts -- demonstrating that the gap is not an artefact of a single instrument or domain. The Stakeholder Grounding Exercise offers a practical method for assessing whether embedding models capture the semantic distinctions that matter most to domain experts.
