Developing the PsyCogMetrics AI Lab to Evaluate Large Language Models and Advance Cognitive Science -- A Three-Cycle Action Design Science Study

The immense number of parameters and deep neural networks make large language models (LLMs) rival the complexity of human brains, which also makes them opaque ``black box'' systems that are challenging to evaluate and interpret. AI Psychometrics is an emerging field that aims to tackle these challenges by applying psychometric methodologies to evaluate and interpret the psychological traits and processes of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. This paper investigates the application of AI Psychometrics to evaluate the psychological reasoning and overall psychometric validity of four prominent LLMs: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, LLaMA-2, and LLaMA-3. Using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), we examined convergent, discriminant, predictive, and external validity across these models. Our findings reveal that the responses from all these models generally met all validity criteria. Moreover, higher-performing models like GPT-4 and LLaMA-3 consistently demonstrated superior psychometric validity compared to their predecessors, GPT-3.5 and LLaMA-2. These results help to establish the validity of applying AI Psychometrics to evaluate and interpret large language models.

AI evaluation is undergoing a structural change. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as systems that act over time through tools, environments, users, and other agents, while many evaluation practices still inherit assumptions from response-centered benchmarks (e.g., fixed inputs, isolated outputs, and outcome judgments that can be made from a single response). The field has begun to build interactive benchmarks, but the resulting landscape is fragmented: benchmarks differ in what interaction artifacts they admit, how trajectories are scored, and what claims their results support. This position paper argues that interactive evaluation should be treated as a principled evaluation paradigm, not merely a new family of agent benchmarks. Simply adopting previous evaluation paradigms does not suffice. We define evaluation as an autonomous mapping from evidence to judgments, and show that interactive evaluation changes both sides of this mapping: the evidence becomes interaction-generated trajectories, while the evaluation procedure must assess process, recoverability, coordination, robustness, and system-level performance. Building on this definition, we propose a two-axis taxonomy, derive design principles and reporting standards, examine representative scenarios, and analyze how longstanding evaluation challenges reappear at the trajectory level.

AI for Research (AI4Research) leverages AI to automate and improve scientific workflows. While experimental design is a critical stage of the research process, prior work has focused primarily on code implementation and execution, overlooking the importance of this stage, and no benchmark exists to evaluate AI's ability to conduct systematic experiment design. To bridge this gap, we propose SCOPE, a Scientific COmprehensive Planning Evaluation Benchmark constructed from 300 high-quality latest papers across 19 research domains from top-tier venues (e.g., ICML, NeurIPS, and ICLR),evaluating LLMs on two dimensions: High-Level planning completeness (main, ablation, and analysis experiments) and Low-Level configuration accuracy and rationality (datasets, baselines, and metrics). Benchmarking reveals three findings: (1) most LLMs cannot directly design high-quality experiments; (2) all LLMs exhibit a performance bottleneck in low-level configuration; and (3) search mode does not improve design quality. Furthermore, to address these challenges, we propose OptED, a novel agentic workflow to optimize LLM-based experimental design, that enhances LLM-based experimental planning through stage isolation, tool augmentation, and rule-based constraints, effectively alleviating the configuration bottleneck.