Position: Building AI Responsibly Requires Broadening Our Understanding of Rigor in AI Research and Practice
, , , , , , , , and . 2025. Position: Building AI Responsibly Requires Broadening Our Understanding of Rigor in AI Research and Practice. arXiv:2506.14652.
Abstract
In AI research and practice, rigor remains largely understood in terms of methodological rigor – such as whether mathematical, statistical, or computational methods are correctly applied. We argue that this narrow conception of rigor has contributed to the concerns raised by the responsible AI community, including overblown claims about AI capabilities. Our position is that a broader conception of what rigorous AI research and practice should entail is needed. We believe such a conception – in addition to a more expansive understanding of (1) methodological rigor – should include aspects related to (2) what background knowledge informs what to work on (epistemic rigor); (3) how disciplinary, community, or personal norms, standards, or beliefs influence the work (normative rigor); (4) how clearly articulated the theoretical constructs under use are (conceptual rigor); (5) what is reported and how (reporting rigor); and (6) how well-supported the inferences from existing evidence are (interpretative rigor). In doing so, we also aim to provide useful language and a framework for much-needed dialogue about the AI community’s work by researchers, policymakers, journalists, and other stakeholders.