Michael Hardy
Publications
Evaluation Cards: An Interpretive Layer for AI Evaluation Reporting
AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present \EvalCards{}, an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies \EvalCards{} across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.
Efficient Detection of Bad Benchmark Items with Novel Scalability Coefficients
The validity of assessments, from large-scale AI benchmarks to human classrooms, depends on the quality of individual items, yet modern evaluation instruments often contain thousands of items with minimal psychometric vetting. We introduce a new family of nonparametric scalability coefficients based on interitem isotonic regression for efficiently detecting globally bad items (e.g., miskeyed, ambiguously worded, or construct-misaligned). The central contribution is the signed isotonic $R^2$, which measures the maximal proportion of variance in one item explainable by a monotone function of another while preserving the direction of association via Kendall's $τ$. Aggregating these pairwise coefficients yields item-level scores that sharply separate problematic items from acceptable ones without assuming linearity or committing to a parametric item response model. We show that the signed isotonic $R^2$ is extremal among monotone predictors (it extracts the strongest possible monotone signal between any two items) and show that this optimality property translates directly into practical screening power. Across three AI benchmark datasets (HS Math, GSM8K, MMLU) and two human assessment datasets, the signed isotonic $R^2$ consistently achieves top-tier AUC for ranking bad items above good ones, outperforming or matching a comprehensive battery of classical test theory, item response theory, and dimensionality-based diagnostics. Crucially, the method remains robust under the small-n/large-p conditions typical of AI evaluation, requires only bivariate monotone fits computable in seconds, and handles mixed item types (binary, ordinal, continuous) without modification. It is a lightweight, model-agnostic filter that can materially reduce the reviewer effort needed to find flawed items in modern large-scale evaluation regimes.
Knowledge without Wisdom: Measuring Misalignment between LLMs and Intended Impact
LLMs increasingly excel on AI benchmarks, but doing so does not guarantee validity for downstream tasks. This study evaluates the performance of leading foundation models (FMs, i.e., generative pre-trained base LLMs) with out-of-distribution (OOD) tasks of the teaching and learning of schoolchildren. Across all FMs, inter-model behaviors on disparate tasks correlate higher than they do with expert human behaviors on target tasks. These biases shared across LLMs are poorly aligned with downstream measures of teaching quality and often \textit{negatively aligned with learning outcomes}. Further, we find multi-model ensembles, both unanimous model voting and expert-weighting by benchmark performance, further exacerbate misalignment with learning. We measure that 50\% of the variation in misalignment error is shared across foundation models, suggesting that common pretraining accounts for much of the misalignment in these tasks. We demonstrate methods for robustly measuring alignment of complex tasks and provide unique insights into both educational applications of foundation models and to understanding limitations of models.