Construct Validity

Financial NLP has a standard workflow: validate a sentiment tool against human labels, then trust it to extract market signal. This assumes the two evaluations measure the same thing. We test that assumption in a setting where both can be measured at once: a corpus of securities class actions (2002-2025) linking 70,500 X messages to abnormal stock returns, with a single-annotator human labelled gold sample. Running five instruments (VADER, Loughran-McDonald, FinBERT, Twitter-RoBERTa, and an LLM annotator) through one identical pipeline, we find that the relationship between construct and predictive validity depends on the sampling convention and score representation. Under conventional method-specific sampling, human agreement aligns more closely with graded same-day associations than with one-day leads. On a fixed-n panel, however, agreement has similar graded rank correlations at both horizons, while the coarse ordering remains weak. Benchmark agreement therefore establishes semantic validity but does not by itself determine predictive rankings. In a conversation that is 17.6% spam, message volume predicts neither market damage nor settlement size.

Many learning systems return a single point estimate even when admissible outputs form disconnected or non-convex sets. Under squared loss, an ambiguous conditional distribution can therefore have a Bayes-optimal conditional mean that is invalid. We formalize this failure as conditional mean collapse and introduce Settling, an equilibrium-based inference operator that separates proposal generation, consistency evaluation, and test-time equilibrium selection. The operator treats a mean-seeking proposal as an initialization and refines it toward a locally stable configuration; conditional on initialization, refinement is deterministic. We establish exact-gradient descent, local convergence, and an inexact-gradient robustness condition relevant to learned consistency critics. In a reproducible 100-context geometric diagnostic, the mean-seeking baseline succeeds in 0/100 contexts, stochastic denoising in 100/100, and Settling in 99/100 while producing substantially lower trajectory roughness. A 1,200-run sensitivity study yields 97-100% success across obstacle-jitter ranges up to 0.20 and 94-100% across one-time initialization perturbations from 0.05 to 0.50. Cross-domain panels remain mechanism illustrations; learned high-dimensional validation remains an open empirical test.

Demographic synthetic survey panels are often validated by matching aggregate answers to published surveys. We test what that certificate establishes across six multiselect batteries from four survey organisations in three countries. The headline analysis is restricted to three instruments whose synthetic cohort and human target share the stated population frame; three other batteries remain sensitivity analyses. The response contract dominates measured fidelity. In the aligned instruments, committed sets leave 66 of 128 model-battery option slots empty in panels of up to 500 respondents, versus 0 of 128 under per-option probability elicitation. Across eight uncapped model-instrument comparisons, probabilities reduce option-marginal MAE by 4.53 to 7.30 points. The capped instrument reverses on two models until the vectors are projected onto its stated maximum. These are measurement effects: human targets are realised check-all responses, whereas the vectors are latent inclusion propensities. Published marginal agreement also fails to discriminate respondent simulation from direct population estimation. On nine aligned model-battery pairs, a no-persona population-prevalence query averages 6.27 MAE versus 12.39 for committed panels and wins all nine comparisons. Constraint-aware probability vectors average 5.34 and beat the query on four of nine, so the baseline challenges the validation criterion rather than proving direct estimation uniformly best. On three unpublished demographic cells, neither approach beats reciting the national distribution. Population-marginal agreement is therefore evidence about an elicitation contract and an estimand obtainable without simulated respondents, not evidence of individual simulation.

Interactive simulations increasingly evaluate policies in markets populated by language-model agents. Their outputs can look economic---prices, profits, consumer surplus, and welfare---without instantiating the behavior named in the claim. We audit this risk in a multi-turn buyer--seller testbed for configurable hotel transactions. An initial implementation reported welfare gains from two marketplace guardrails of +87.4, +35.0, and +28.8 across a Qwen2.5 1.5B--14B ladder. It also gave guarded and unguarded agents different offer schemas and choice procedures. Holding the schema and buyer chooser fixed changes the paired contrasts to +7.2, -13.9, and +23.8. The four largest 14B single-generation effects averaged +229; after three generations per profile-condition, they averaged +37.6 (95% bootstrap interval [-34.2, 109.3]), while generation residuals account for 49.9% of variation in this post-hoc probe. A seller-incentive check is non-monotone: increasing profit pressure produces less profit than the default seller prompt. Scripted positive controls show why this matters. A profit-maximizing seller already attains first-best welfare, so guardrails mostly redistribute and reduce welfare; they create welfare only when the seller is explicitly programmed to force inefficient bundles. We contribute a construct-validity contract separating incentive validity, protocol isolation, stochastic stability, and welfare accounting, and returning INVALID or INCONCLUSIVE before substantive policy claims. In our case, the original estimate is INVALID under protocol isolation, while the controlled study remains INCONCLUSIVE under incentive validity and stochastic stability. The case does not show that guardrails are ineffective; it shows their apparent value is unidentified until the simulated agents and protocol pass these checks.

A multimodal system may begin inference while holding only some of its inputs and may acquire the rest at a cost. With adaptive acquisition, the policy determines which inputs are ultimately observed, so we state risk control conditional on that terminal input pattern. Conditional calibration typically assumes that the grouping map is fixed independently of the calibration sample, a condition that policy-induced grouping does not satisfy. We characterize when pattern-conditional risk control remains valid and give two finite-sample constructions: threshold-free routing with calibration applied at the terminal pattern, and simultaneous validation of complete policy-pattern pairs, which lets calibration data select the deployed policy. A counterexample shows that validity proved for a calibration-independent grouping map need not transfer once the policy makes the terminal group calibration-dependent. We call the resulting method RouteCert. On a clinical electrocardiogram task with a staged, cost-ordered lead protocol, the deployed policy answers 71.2% of held-out patients, with an observed 7.4% disagreement with the cardiologist's diagnosis at 48.8% of the prespecified ordinal cost of acquiring each stage, and all three acquisition stages are validated separately. On masked multimodal benchmarks, validating pointwise at each terminal pattern holds observed worst-pattern selective risk, measured against the full-information reference decision rather than the true label, at 0.034, where a pooled design reaches 0.145 against a 0.10 cap, at a comparable answered fraction (0.350 vs 0.342); under the budget-matched simultaneous comparison, the answered fraction falls to 0.305.

Security evaluations of tool-using agents often equate stored labels with behavioral facts. We audit a preserved campaign by tracing 10,200 execution rows to 180 model-bound requests, 45 semantic requests, and 15 observable stimuli. Two schema treatments were delivered, but the planned external payload-family corpus was not. The historical grader exhibited direct treatment leakage: treatment metadata gated the ATTACK_SUCCESS class, so fixed behavior could change class under treatment relabeling. A treatment-blind reconstruction corrects 58 historical ATTACK_SUCCESS or HIJACK_ATTEMPT labels to authorized benign completions while preserving three verified protected-data transfers and one separate unauthorized-forwarding case. The locked v2 census contains exactly zero ATTACK_SUCCESS records, while the forwarding case remains a HIJACK_ATTEMPT at a semantic boundary concerning objective completion. A dual-reviewer blinded concordance review of all 96 requests deemed structurally interpretable by locked v2 produced identical reviewer-consensus classes but differed from the locked codebook on four construct-boundary cases. We contribute a seven-link Integrity Chain and an executable, scope-bounded endpoint-integrity linter. The result is a campaign-bounded measurement audit, not a population attack-rate, model-ranking, defense-efficacy, or causal estimate.

Extreme events in air transport, such as severe arrival delays and abnormal air times, cause cascading network disruptions with substantial operational, economic, and safety costs. Such events are rare in historical records, leaving insufficient training signal for machine learning models. Synthetic data augmentation offers a principled solution, but conventional generative models under-represent distributional tails and give no guarantee against operationally infeasible instances, such as a short air time paired with a long flight distance. No existing approach addresses both limitations for mixed-type tabular records. We propose TailBooster, a dual-layer generative framework combining generative modelling with two anomaly detection layers. A statistical layer extracts extremes via the interquartile range, supplying tail-concentrated training signal to dedicated generative models, here a Tabular Variational Autoencoder. A deep learning layer then applies autoencoder-based cleaning, discarding synthetic records that violate the operational envelope learned from historical data. The framework was evaluated on US flight records across five dimensions: diversity, statistical similarity, fidelity, operational validity, and utility, the latter two being the primary improvement targets. Data-driven cleaning markedly improved operational validity, while targeted augmentation enhanced utility for extreme-event prediction. Across six regression algorithms, training on the framework's records reduced Mean Absolute Error by 47-49% on extreme air time and 29-57% on extreme arrival delay prediction relative to conventional synthetic data, with comparable gains when real records were enriched with synthetic extremes. Being fully data-driven and model-agnostic, TailBooster extends to domains where extreme-event prediction is critical and domain-specific rules are unavailable.

Conformal prediction endows arbitrary black-box predictors with finite-sample, distribution-free marginal coverage, yet marginal validity can hide severe covariate-specific miscalibration, while exact distribution-free conditional coverage is finite-sample unattainable. Randomly localized conformal prediction (RLCP) mitigates this gap by calibrating near the test point while preserving marginal coverage. Existing theory, however, lacks finite-sample guarantees for the realized localized set that jointly control conditional validity and oracle efficiency. We provide such guarantees. For any fixed score, under Hölder regularity of the conditional score CDF and standard density and kernel assumptions, we prove high-probability bounds, uniform over a realized localization neighbourhood, for the conditional-coverage gap and the length error relative to the oracle. The bounds decompose into an $O(h^β)$ localization bias and a calibration term decreasing with calibration size, clarifying the bandwidth bias-variance tradeoff and when RLCP tracks the oracle. We also analyze data-split learned scores: when the score targets a pivotal score, as in conformalized quantile regression, uniform local guarantees decompose into fixed-score calibration and uniform score-estimation errors, showing that improved learning sharpens localized guarantees.

Predicting fatigue failure in steel components experimentally is costly because it requires testing across multiple compositions and processing conditions. This has spurred research on data-driven prediction models. Studies using the NIMS MatNavi steel fatigue dataset often report high point-prediction accuracy but rely on aggregate error metrics, leaving uncertainty about the reliability of individual predictions and whether accuracy is consistent across the fatigue-strength spectrum. This paper is the first to apply conformal prediction to steel fatigue strength, comparing five interval-construction methods across 50 independent data splits and distinguishing marginal coverage from coverage within specific sub-regions of the predicted property. A gradient-boosting point model achieves an R^2 of 0.976 +/- 0.009 and a mean absolute error of 18.3 +/- 2.3 MPa. Split-conformal prediction provides valid marginal coverage (0.918) but drops to 0.755 in the highest-strength quartile, where design margins are most critical, a pattern also observed with a Gaussian process baseline. A cross-fitted, normalized conformal method restores near-uniform coverage across all quartiles (0.869-0.938) without a significant increase in interval width, by scaling the interval based on a cross-fitted estimate of local prediction difficulty rather than using a single global width. Diagnostic analysis traces the residual gap in the highest-strength quartile to elevated residual variance (2.7x the pooled Q1-Q3 level) rather than a systematic bias, situating the shortfall against a proven distribution-free limit on exact conditional coverage. Marginal coverage claims for ML-based fatigue-strength predictions can conceal systematic unreliability precisely where engineering decisions are most risky; therefore, conditional coverage should be routinely assessed alongside marginal coverage.

Agent-safety benchmarks measure different behaviors, and their scores get quoted interchangeably as an agent's safety. We treat four of them (R-Judge, InjecAgent, AgentHarm, AgentDojo) as measurements to be validated, running each under its official implementation and author-provided scorer on up to 22 models, with MMLU and GPQA measured by us under one protocol as a capability composite. The metric is the first problem. On any binary trace-judgment benchmark scored by $F_1$, an ``always positive'' policy attains $F_1 = 2π/(1+π)$; on R-Judge that is $0.690$, above five of the 21 models that actually discriminate. The three broad-coverage benchmarks then rank the same 18 models differently, and the trade-off behind that disagreement is a small-panel artifact: R-Judge specificity against AgentHarm safety correlates $-0.64$ at $n{=}7$ and $+0.02$ at $n{=}18$, and a quarter of random size-7 subsets reach $|ρ| \geq 0.5$ around that near-zero value. Held-out validity turns on which outcome you pick. Capability predicts task success ($ρ{=}{+}0.60$) but correlates negatively with misalignment safety ($ρ{=}{-}0.44$, $n{=}21$). On their paired $n{=}20$ panel, the corresponding contrast is $Δ{=}{-}1.00$ (95% CI $[-1.48, -0.49]$, $p<0.001$), and it survives leave-one-organization-out and organization-clustered bootstrap analyses. On an expanded 41-model panel, the misalignment correlation weakens to $-0.16$ (95% CI $[-0.54, +0.22]$) and jailbreak strengthens to $+0.34$, though neither change is significant. \mbox{AgentHarm} shows the strongest held-out association, $ρ{=}{+}0.72$ with three-template jailbreak safety after controlling capability. But both instruments score harmful compliance, so this is evidence of convergent validity rather than general safety. Naming the benchmark, metric, target behavior, and model panel is the minimum a safety claim needs.

For two decades, the standard remedy for class-imbalanced learning has been to fabricate synthetic minority examples, and the standard evidence of their validity has been a check that cannot fail: synthetic points are scored against the very data that generated them. We de-bias the check. Validity becomes a population quantity -- the probability that a synthetic point truly belongs to the minority class -- with a consistent estimator that scores synthetic points against withheld real data. Where held-out ground truth is available, the classical test underestimates true invalidity in 96-99% of method-by-imbalance-ratio cells, while the de-biased estimator tracks it closely. We prove validity is a property of the data, not the method: class overlap sets an invalidity floor no faithful generator escapes, making oversampling redundant where classes separate and invalid where they overlap. Across 91 methods, three classifiers, and datasets spanning medicine and finance -- including a generator engineered to pass the classical check -- none clears both bars: gains over the best trivial baseline are noise-thin (median below 0.01 F1, a decision threshold's reach), and most damage calibration. We release the audit as a pip-installable test and flip the burden of proof: synthetic minority data must now demonstrate, on the data at hand, both validity and information gain.

High-stakes English proficiency tests treat standardized, unaided performance as evidence for score interpretations about academic English proficiency. This interpretation remains meaningful, but as target language use domains increasingly involve generative AI, the extrapolation from unaided test performance to academic communicative readiness becomes less self-evident. This conceptual validity argument reframes AI as a score-interpretation problem in high-stakes language testing, not only an operational issue of scoring, feedback, security, or misconduct. Synthesizing current literature in three uneven layers, the paper shows that most work treats AI as assessment infrastructure, while far less theorizes its implications for construct validity and extrapolation warrants. It defines AI-mediated construct drift as the misalignment that arises when communicative abilities required in the target domain change through AI mediation while test constructs remain anchored to an unaided-performance model. It proposes bounded AI mediation as a validity-oriented design principle: a standardized condition in which all test takers access the same institutionally controlled AI assistant, with predefined assistance boundaries, logged interactions, and tasks that distinguish comprehension support from answer generation. The paper argues that score interpretations should be narrowed and supplemented when used to support claims about AI-mediated academic communication.

Conformal prediction is being adopted in drug discovery to put an honest number on model reliability: pick an error rate alpha, and the method returns prediction sets containing the true label with probability at least 1 - alpha. We show this guarantee can be dangerous on imbalanced datasets. Across four datasets, standard (marginal) conformal prediction hits its global 90% coverage target while leaving the minority class badly exposed: realized minority coverage falls to 64.8% on blood-brain-barrier penetration and to 4.2% on clinical-trial toxicity, where the rare class is nearly abandoned. The failure is not tied to one model: a random forest, a graph network, and a frozen chemical language model all reproduce it (p < 0.001 in every case), with severity tracking baseline calibration on rare labels rather than architecture. A conservation identity explains the effect: the minority's shortfall equals the majority's surplus amplified by the imbalance ratio, predicting the measured gap to within one point and ordering severity across datasets. The failure survives realistic scaffold splits and a second conformal score, while aggregate accuracy and overall coverage stay reassuringly high, which is exactly why it is easy to miss. Class-conditional (Mondrian) conformal prediction closes the gap on every dataset, restoring minority coverage to target for a modest increase in prediction-set size. We localize the failures to generic molecular scaffolds - plain benzene and pyridine cores occurring in both classes - propose a one-number diagnostic, and show with a cost model that abstaining on affected compounds flips a screening campaign from net-negative to net-positive utility. Our contribution is demonstrating on real chemistry how severe and invisible this known conformal-theory gap becomes under imbalance, and laying out a practical protocol restoring per-class reliability.

When a large language model (LLM) codes a construct in text as a human annotator would, that agreement makes the LLM a reliable coder. Yet reliability leaves construct validity untouched. The instrument may be theory-naive, reaching the code through a correlate that meets none of the demands the construct's theory makes, and no current method tells that apart from genuine measurement. We propose grain calibration as a method that closes the gap. It decomposes a construct into clause-level components, tests each against the text with extractive evidence, and combines the results through an explicit, theory-derived rule. Because the rule is stated rather than lodged in one opaque pass, its structure is evidence about the process rather than the output. It shows which components settled a code, and, when the code is wrong, whether a component was missed or an adjacent construct mistaken for it. Validation shifts from scoring an instrument's outputs against an annotator to showing that the instrument runs on the construct its theory specifies.

External indexes can be used for cluster evaluation when ground truth is available. We review the most common external validity indexes focusing on set-matching-based measures. We recommend centroid index (CI), because it is an intuitive cluster-level measure with an explainable result. If we need a more fine-tuned, point-level measure, there are more choices. Pair-set index (PSI) provides a normalized score which is not biased by cluster sizes. If all points should matter equally, then clustering accuracy (ACC) or any other set-matching measure is suitable.

Online reinforcement learning (RL) agents increasingly depend on knowledge acquired offline to achieve practical efficiency. Originally studied in offline-to-online RL, this paradigm now spans foundation model post-training and embodied intelligence, with prior types expanding from offline datasets and pre-trained policies to increasingly diverse knowledge sources such as multimodal foundation models and generative world models. Offline priors have become central to how deep RL is developed and deployed. However, this reliance introduces a challenge that the prevailing benchmark-driven paradigm cannot resolve: because prior validity varies across deployments and shifts during training, no single approach to managing it is universally optimal, and benchmark rankings offer limited guidance for real-world deployments. Rather than pursuing universal solutions, we argue that the field should shift to diagnosis-driven tension management, in which deployment-specific evidence guides how the learner relates to its priors throughout training, enabling both flexible and adaptive deployment. We support this position with a framework characterizing how priors reshape online optimization through three functional roles, controlled experiments demonstrating help-or-hurt reversals, cross-domain evidence from foundation model post-training to embodied intelligence, and engagement with five substantive counterarguments.

Conformal selection aims to identify test candidates whose unknown responses fall in a target region while controlling the false discovery rate. Existing methods often inherit prediction-oriented nonconformity scores, such as residual or clipped residual scores, from conformal prediction. We argue that the natural score for selection is instead the target-membership probability. This score directly addresses the binary event being selected, and any monotone transform of it gives the Neyman--Pearson oracle ranking at a fixed null selection level. This distinction is irrelevant for mean-monotone targets, where conventional scores induce essentially the same ranking, but becomes important for interval-valued, variance-driven, multimodal, or multi-condition targets, where prediction-oriented scores can be misaligned with selection power. We study membership-score-based conformal selection and isolate one conformal calibration route, Null-Calibrated Conformal Selection (NCCS), which ranks test scores against confirmed non-target calibration examples. Under null exchangeability, NCCS yields finite-sample valid null p-values, which can be combined with BY under arbitrary dependence or with BH under standard positive-dependence conditions. Experiments support the score principle: membership scores match conventional scores on mean-monotone targets, substantially improve over mean-score selection on variance-driven targets, and, when calibrated by NCCS, trade power for finite-sample null validity in rare-target regimes where direct empirical-FDP thresholding can be anti-conservative.

We present TruthSplit, an interactive system for multi-perspective argument analysis. Existing argumentation tools typically analyze properties of the argument itself, such as structure, quality, stance, or persuasiveness, while leaving perspective-specific background knowledge implicit. TruthSplit addresses this gap by supporting an exploratory analysis of how the same claim can lead to different conclusions when interpreted through worldview-specific values, assumptions, and conceptual definitions. We refer to this perspective-dependent analysis as conditional validity. Given an input argumentative text, TruthSplit extracts claims and premises, applies a three-layer natural language inference (NLI) approach to assess both logical and worldview-specific normative consistency, and conditions large language model (LLM) reasoning on structured worldview profiles that encode core values and decision principles. The system then generates perspective-specific interpretations, identifies value conflicts and assumption gaps, and visualizes divergence through interactive analytical interfaces.

Controlling language model outputs is essential for ensuring structural validity, reliability, and downstream usability, and diffusion language models are no exception. Recent advances in diffusion language model decoding have extended output control beyond regular constraints to context-free grammar (CFG) constraints. Existing methods, however, can be up to four times slower than unconstrained decoding. More importantly, they substantially diminish one of the key advantages of diffusion language models over autoregressive models, namely parallel decoding. This slowdown arises because sequential validity checking introduces significant overhead during parallel generation. We propose an efficient CFG-constrained decoding framework, EPIC, that addresses this limitation. Our method improves decoding efficiency by combining lexing memoization, validation using Earley-style parsing instead of deterministic automata, and relaxed compatible subset selection for parallel commit. It reduces repeated lexing and validation overhead while allowing multiple compatible tokens to be committed together. Experiments on three benchmarks using four models show that our method reduces inference time by up to 67.5% and decreases the additional overhead by up to 90.5% compared with existing CFG-constrained decoding methods. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/hyundong98/EPIC-Decoding.git .

Despite remarkable progress on reasoning benchmarks, current LLM evaluation practice remains anchored to final-answer correctness, providing limited insight into how models reason, how reliably they behave under contextual variation, or how efficiently they reach conclusions. This paper proposes a unified multi-dimensional framework for measuring LLM reasoning quality from a behavioral perspective, operationalizing six theoretically grounded dimensions rooted in cognitive science: Correctness (CQ), Consistency (CS), Robustness (RS), Local Logical Coherence (LS), Efficiency (ES), and Stability (SS). The framework introduces deployment-aware aggregation, enabling context-specific model selection beyond accuracy-based leaderboards. Experiments across multiple LLMs and benchmarks reveal behaviors systematically concealed by single-metric evaluation, including the orthogonality of local logical coherence and correctness, deployment-context-dependent ranking inversions, and non-trivial dimensional profiles in small locally-deployed models. Discriminant validity analysis confirms that the proposed dimensions capture largely non-redundant signals. The resulting pipeline provides a foundation for diagnosing LLM reasoning behavior across deployment contexts, with domain-specific validation as a direction for future work.

Conformal prediction is often calibrated with a single pooled threshold, but this can hide cross-group heterogeneity in score distributions and distort group-wise coverage. We study this phenomenon through the population score distributions underlying split conformal calibration. First, we derive a conservation law and lower bound showing that pooled calibration incurs irreducible group-wise coverage distortion at a scale set by cross-group quantile heterogeneity. Second, we demonstrate that the two leading fairness definitions for conformal prediction, Equalized Coverage and Equalized Set Size, are fundamentally in tension. Third, we quantify the cost of moving between policies which treat groups separately or pool them. Experiments on synthetic and real data confirm the same bidirectional trade-off after finite-sample calibration. Our results show that, for the policy families studied here, calibration choice does not remove cross-group heterogeneity; it determines whether the resulting distortion appears in the coverage or size dimension, providing a principled lens for analyzing fairness-oriented calibration choices in practice.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social science as scalable measurement tools for converting unstructured text into variables that can enter standard empirical designs. Measurement validity demands more than high average accuracy, which requires well calibrated confidence that faithfully reflects the empirical probability of each measurement being correct. This paper studies the model miscalibration in LLM-based social science measurement. We begin with a case study on FOMC and show that confidence based filtering can change downstream regression estimates when LLM confidence is miscalibrated. We then audit calibration across 14 social science constructs covering both proprietary models, including GPT-5-mini, DeepSeek-V3.2, and open source models. Across tasks and model families, reported confidence is poorly aligned with tolerance-based correctness. As a simple mitigation, we propose a soft label distillation pipeline for calibrating Bert with LLM. The method converts an LLM score and its verbalized confidence into a soft target distribution, then trains a smaller discriminative classifier on encoder models for these targets. Averaged across datasets, this approach reduces ECE by 43.2% and Brier by 34.0%. These results suggest that LLM-based social science pipelines should treat calibration as part of measurement validity, rather than as an optional post-processing concern.

Natural Language Processing is rapidly evolving into a primary instrument for Computational Social Science, with researchers increasingly using embeddings to measure latent constructs such as novelty, creativity, and bias. However, this transition faces a fundamental validity challenge: the ''Proxy Presumption,'' or the reliance on geometric properties (e.g., cosine distance) as direct measures of social concepts. We argue that without explicit validation, unsupervised representations remain entangled mixtures of the target construct ($C$) and confounding attributes ($Z$) like topic, style, and authorship. To bridge the gap between semantic embeddings and valid social measures, we introduce the Construct Validity Protocol (CVP). Drawing on causal representation learning and psychometrics, the CVP offers a rigorous pipeline from conceptualization to quantitative verification. We further propose Counterfactual Neutralization, a novel method using LLMs to reduce confounding in embedding space. By providing a standardized Validity Suite -- including tests for discriminant, incremental, and predictive validity -- this work offers the community a toolkit to transform heuristic proxies into robust, scientifically defensible instruments.

Many deployments must compare candidate language models for safety before a labeled benchmark exists for the relevant language, sector, or regulatory regime. We formalize this setting as benchmarkless comparative safety scoring and specify the contract under which a scenario-based audit can be interpreted as deployment evidence. Scores are valid only under a fixed scenario pack, rubric, auditor, judge, sampling configuration, and rerun budget. Because no labels are available, we replace ground-truth agreement with an instrumental-validity chain: responsiveness to a controlled safe-versus-abliterated contrast, dominance of target-driven variance over auditor and judge artifacts, and stability across reruns. We instantiate the chain in SimpleAudit, a local-first scoring instrument, and validate it on a Norwegian safety pack. Safe and abliterated targets separate with AUROC values between 0.89 and 1.00, target identity is the dominant variance component ($η^2 \approx 0.52$), and severity profiles stabilize by ten reruns. Applying the same chain to Petri shows that it admits both tools. The substantial differences arise upstream of the chain, in claim-contract enforcement and deployment fit. A Norwegian public-sector procurement case comparing Borealis and Gemma 3 demonstrates the resulting evidence in practice: the safer model depends on scenario category and risk measure. Consequently, scores, matched deltas, critical rates, uncertainty, and the auditor and judge used must be reported together rather than collapsed into a single ranking.

Trimming suspicious calibration points is a common response to contamination in conformal prediction. Its effect on clean-target coverage, however, is governed by the retained law induced by trimming, not by the contamination level alone. We analyse fixed-threshold trimming as conditioning rather than purification. It replaces the contaminated calibration law with a retained law, reducing clean-target coverage to a one-dimensional score-CDF transfer problem with an exact finite-sample identity. A componentwise bound on the transfer gap gives a population-level diagnostic. This separates a clean-side covariance cost from a retained-contamination cost, governed by the dirty-to-clean retention ratio. Trimming helps when the anomaly score separates retention probabilities while remaining score-neutral on the clean population. Otherwise, it cannot substantially reduce contamination through the retained mixture coefficient. We also give finite-sample certificate templates that provide numerical guarantees under independent audit.

Conformal prediction provides distribution-free predictive intervals with finite-sample marginal coverage. However, achieving conditional validity and interval efficiency (in terms of short interval length) remains challenging, particularly in complex settings with heteroskedasticity, skewed responses, or estimation errors. We propose a conformal-style calibration method for responses obtained by the probability integral transform (PIT) of the conditional cumulative distribution function (CDF) estimated via neural networks to construct a finite-sample-adjusted percentile interval with the shortest length determined by the estimated conditional CDF. Calibrating in PIT space is effective because PIT values are asymptotically feature-independent when the CDF estimator is accurate, which mitigates feature-dependent miscoverage and improves conditional calibration. On the other hand, our percentile calibration adapts to the empirical PIT distribution, which is robust against a possibly imperfect estimation of the conditional CDF. We prove the finite-sample marginal coverage property of the proposed method and show its asymptotic conditional coverage under mild consistency conditions. Experiments on diverse synthetic and real-world benchmarks demonstrate better conditional calibration and substantially shorter intervals than existing methods.

The validity screen (Cacioli, 2026d, 2026e) classifies LLM confidence signals as Valid, Indeterminate, or Invalid. We test whether these classifications predict selective prediction performance. Twenty frontier LLMs from seven families were evaluated on 524 items across six cognitive tracks. Valid models show mean Type 2 AUROC = .624 (SD = .048). Invalid models show mean AUROC = .357 (SD = .231). Cohen's d = 2.81, p = .002. The tiers order monotonically: Invalid (.357) < Indeterminate (.554) < Valid (.624). Split-half cross-validation yields median d = 1.77, P(d > 0) = 1.0 across 1,000 splits. The three-tier classification accounts for 47% of the variance in AUROC. DeepSeek-R1 drops from 85.3% accuracy at full coverage to 11.3% at 10% coverage. The screen predicts the criterion. For selective prediction, the screen matters.

Clinical personality assessment screens response validity before interpreting substantive scales. LLM evaluation does not. We apply the validity scaling framework from the PAI and MMPI-3 to metacognitive probe data from 20 frontier models across 524 items. Six validity indices are operationalised: L (maintaining confidence on errors), K (betting on errors), F (withdrawing consensus-endorsed items), Fp (withdrawing correct answers), RBS (inverted monitoring), and TRIN (fixed responding). A tiered classification system identifies four models as construct-level invalid and two as elevated. Valid-profile models produce item-sensitive confidence (mean r = .18, 14 of 16 significant). Invalid-profile models do not (mean r = -.20, d = 2.17, p = .001). Chain-of-thought training produces two opposite response distortions. Two latent dimensions account for 94.6% of index variance. Companion papers extract a portable screening protocol (Cacioli, 2026e) and validate it against selective prediction (Cacioli, 2026f). All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

Empirical investigations into unintended model behavior often show that the algorithm is predicting another outcome than what was intended. These exposés highlight the need to identify when algorithms predict unintended quantities - ideally before deploying them into consequential settings. We propose a falsification framework that provides a principled statistical test for discriminant validity: the requirement that an algorithm predict intended outcomes better than impermissible ones. Drawing on falsification practices from causal inference, econometrics, and psychometrics, our framework compares calibrated prediction losses across outcomes to assess whether the algorithm exhibits discriminant validity with respect to a specified impermissible proxy. In settings where the target outcome is difficult to observe, multiple permissible proxy outcomes may be available; our framework accommodates both this setting and the case with a single permissible proxy. Throughout we use nonparametric hypothesis testing methods that make minimal assumptions on the data-generating process. We illustrate the method in an admissions setting, where the framework establishes discriminant validity with respect to gender but fails to establish discriminant validity with respect to race. This demonstrates how falsification can serve as an early validity check. We also provide analysis in a criminal justice setting, where we highlight the limitations of our framework and emphasize the need for complementary approaches to assess other aspects of construct validity and external validity.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into social simulation has generated considerable enthusiasm, but also raises substantial methodological and epistemological challenges. This critical review examines the use of LLMs as cognitive or decision-making components of simulated agents from a computational social science perspective. Rather than treating the psychological evaluation of LLMs as separate from simulation mechanics, we argue that their behavioural and epistemic limitations can become systemic vulnerabilities when scaled to multi-agent societies. We first map the rapidly evolving landscape of LLM-driven platforms, ranging from small narrative sandboxes to population-scale and spatially structured simulations. We then develop a unified critical framework for analyzing the Micro-to-Macro Validity Gap: the propagation and amplification of micro-level limitations, including hallucinations, stochastic inconsistency, representational biases, and alignment effects, into macro-level risks such as the Fluency Fallacy, convergence toward an average persona, and automation bias. We identify contexts in which LLM-based agents offer genuine operational value, including serious games, participatory environments, and exploratory modelling, while distinguishing these uses from confirmatory research and precise social forecasting. Finally, we examine theory-driven hybrid architectures that embed LLMs within explicit, mechanistic, and reproducible Agent-Based Modelling (ABM) frameworks. We argue that such architectures offer a promising but not sufficient path toward improving epistemic control: their validity depends on multi-level evaluation of environmental dynamics, individual behaviour, cross-level interactions, and aggregate outcomes, and they remain vulnerable to the risk of physics washing.

Recent work has argued normatively, on synthetic data, that evaluating survival models by discrimination alone (concordance index) yields systematically misleading model comparisons, because the metric ignores calibration and time-dependent accuracy. Whether this matters for real, published, non-clinical models has not been tested. We reproduce three published survival-ML models across three structurally distinct domains -- hard-drive failure prediction, peer-to-peer credit default, and user disengagement on digital platforms -- validate our instrument against the anchor paper's own synthetic experiment, and test five pre-registered hypotheses under a Holm-corrected family-wise error rate. Three of five reject (though one pre-registered threshold clears by a narrow margin). A model reproducing the published literature's discrimination almost exactly (C = 0.9595 vs. 0.958 reported) fails a formal calibration test at p < 0.001; a broad feature-ablation search finds no single attribute responsible for its discrimination, so the calibration failure is not a trivial shortcut artifact. A lender's estimated default risk is biased upward by roughly two percentage points, growing to nearly four in the riskiest segment, when loan prepayment is treated as non-informative censoring rather than a competing risk. A platform's churn model shows probability estimates that degrade with the horizon even as global discrimination stays within the pre-registered C-index band. A direct test of whether metric choice inverts model preference does not reject, though with limited power given two to three models per domain; the failure mode we document is better characterized as misplaced confidence in a chosen model than as choosing the wrong one. We release a pre-registered evaluation harness with full code and an annotated notebook, so these results can be verified independently and the audit extended.