Audits of generative AI (GenAI) systems often summarize behavior as a reported rate: how often the audited system complies with policy. Researchers and stakeholders use that rate to compare systems, track regressions, and gate deployment. A reported rate reflects both the system under audit and the measurement choices behind it, so a change in the rate can leave it unclear whether the system or those choices moved. We introduce ASSERT, a specification-driven measurement pipeline for GenAI audits that ties each reported rate to a written specification of the measurement choices used to produce it. ASSERT helps draft a behavioral rubric and test cases, then runs the audit against a GenAI system and returns a reported rate. In a case study on conversational deception, we observe that the reported rate moves substantially with the dialogue setup, the simulated user, the judge, and the evidence bar for non-compliance. These measurement choices substantially change the reported rate and can reorder GenAI system rankings. Because each reported rate is tied to an explicit specification, differences across audits are easier to attribute and interpret.

Representational harms are widely recognized among fairness-related harms caused by generative language systems. However, their definitions are commonly under-specified. We make a theoretical contribution to the specification of representational harms by introducing a framework, grounded in speech act theory (Austin 1962), that conceptualizes representational harms caused by generative language systems as the perlocutionary effects (i.e., real-world impacts) of particular types of illocutionary acts (i.e., system behaviors). Building on this argument and drawing on relevant literature from linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics, we provide new definitions of stereotyping, demeaning, and erasure. We then use our framework to develop a granular taxonomy of illocutionary acts that cause representational harms, going beyond the high-level taxonomies presented in previous work. We also discuss the ways that our framework and taxonomy can support the development of valid measurement instruments. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of our framework and taxonomy via a case study that engages with recent conceptual debates about what constitutes a representational harm and how such harms should be measured.

Computational social science (CSS) practitioners often rely on human-labeled data to fine-tune supervised text classifiers. We assess the potential for researchers to augment or replace human-generated training data with surrogate training labels from generative large language models (LLMs). We introduce a recommended workflow and test this LLM application by replicating 14 classification tasks and measuring performance. We employ a novel corpus of English-language text classification data sets from recent CSS articles in high-impact journals. Because these data sets are stored in password-protected archives, our analyses are less prone to issues of contamination. For each task, we compare supervised classifiers fine-tuned using GPT-4 labels against classifiers fine-tuned with human annotations and against labels from GPT-4 and Mistral-7B with few-shot in-context learning. Our findings indicate that supervised classification models fine-tuned on LLM-generated labels perform comparably to models fine-tuned with labels from human annotators. Fine-tuning models using LLM-generated labels can be a fast, efficient and cost-effective method of building supervised text classifiers.