General scales unlock AI evaluation with explanatory and predictive power

. Here we introduce general scales for AI evaluation that elicit demand profiles explaining what capabilities common AI benchmarks truly measure, extract ability profiles quantifying the general strengths and limits of AI systems and robustly predict AI performance for new task instances. Our fully automated methodology builds on 18 rubrics, capturing a broad range of cognitive and intellectual demands, which place different task instances on the same general scales, illustrated on 15 large language models (LLMs) and 63 tasks. Both the demand and the ability profiles on these scales bring new insights such as construct validity through benchmark sensitivity and specificity and explain conflicting claims about whether AI has reasoning capabilities. Ultimately, high predictive power at the instance level becomes possible using the general scales, providing superior estimates over strong black-box baseline predictors, especially in out-of-distribution settings (new tasks and benchmarks). The scales, rubrics, battery, techniques and results presented here constitute a solid foundation for a science of AI evaluation, underpinning the reliable deployment of AI in the years ahead.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10303-2
Primary Topic
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

General scales unlock AI evaluation with explanatory and predictive power

David Stillwell, Lucy G. Cheke, Jiyun Zu, Lorenzo Pacchiardi et al.
Nature
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
article

General scales unlock AI evaluation with explanatory and predictive power

David Stillwell, Lucy G. Cheke, Jiyun Zu, Lorenzo Pacchiardi, Zongqian Li, Jonathan E. Prunty, Katherine M. Collins, Lexin Zhou, Peter Henderson, Patrick C. Kyllonen, Yael Moros-Daval, Luning Sun, Qinlin Zhao, Seraphina Zhang, Sherry Tongshuang Wu, Kexin Jiang-Chen, José Hernández-Orallo, Pablo A M Casares, Fernando Martínez-Plumed, Yitian Huang, Behzad Mehrbakhsh, Pablo Sánchez-García, John Burden
article en

Abstract

. Here we introduce general scales for AI evaluation that elicit demand profiles explaining what capabilities common AI benchmarks truly measure, extract ability profiles quantifying the general strengths and limits of AI systems and robustly predict AI performance for new task instances. Our fully automated methodology builds on 18 rubrics, capturing a broad range of cognitive and intellectual demands, which place different task instances on the same general scales, illustrated on 15 large language models (LLMs) and 63 tasks. Both the demand and the ability profiles on these scales bring new insights such as construct validity through benchmark sensitivity and specificity and explain conflicting claims about whether AI has reasoning capabilities. Ultimately, high predictive power at the instance level becomes possible using the general scales, providing superior estimates over strong black-box baseline predictors, especially in out-of-distribution settings (new tasks and benchmarks). The scales, rubrics, battery, techniques and results presented here constitute a solid foundation for a science of AI evaluation, underpinning the reliable deployment of AI in the years ahead.

NatureVol. 652(8108)
Educational Testing Service (US), William & Mary (US), Princeton University (US), University of Cambridge (GB), Williams (United States) (US), Leverhulme Trust (GB), Microsoft Research Asia (China) (CN), Centre for Automation and Robotics (ES), Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (ES), Universitat Politècnica de València (ES), Carnegie Mellon University (US), KU Leuven (BE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 29%
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.