Comprehensive evaluation of machine learning models is the key to make sure that they perform as robustly and consistently as desired. In order to summarize the experimental results and pick a winner, Critical Difference (CD) diagrams are used. Standard CD diagrams rely on discrete ranks, discarding the magnitude of performance gaps between models, raising an issue which we call magnitude-blindness. In order to address this issue, we propose Magnitude-Aware Rank Statistics (MARS) that incorporates a relative margin coefficient as a weight for the discrete ranks. This coefficient scales ranks based on the distance between the best and worst performers, with a dynamic projection to handle boundary cases. Followed by the calculation of a CD value, MARS results in a more realistic statistical representation of differences of model performances and more insights on how methods actually perform in vast and extensive experimental settings.
Benchmarks of machine learning models often include many datasets, making evaluation expensive. For efficiency, it is preferable to perform evaluations on small, representative datasets instead. The selection of such subsets typically relies on heuristics and is rarely analyzed for the robustness of the resulting model rankings. We introduce a framework to perform the task of selecting datasets subsets with an evaluation of how different selection strategies preserve the global model rankings. Our framework includes bootstrap aggregation, which provides valid confidence intervals, allowing a principled comparison of selection strategies. We consider clustering, design criteria (A/D-optimality), random baselines, and greedy farthest-first (FAFI). For the latter, we derive upper bounds on selection quality in terms of ranking errors as a function of the number of selected datasets. Empirically, in time series classification (TSC, 112 datasets) and in a supplementary natural language processing benchmark derived from MTEB (57 tasks), several selection strategies improve rank preservation compared with random subsets, including simple FAFI. In contrast, in recommender systems (30 datasets), the improvement of strategies over random selection is small and typically statistically insignificant. For TSC, our best-performing strategy achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.95 with the full benchmark model rankings using only five selected datasets. Additional experiments indicate that the effectiveness of selection approaches depends on both the quality of dataset representations and the scale of the benchmarking regime.
Pretrained models are often evaluated on multi-task leaderboards to measure their applicability in diverse contexts. However, current methods for aggregating performance across tasks into leaderboard-level rankings do not address the uncertainty and variability at the task level. While recent works have proposed interval-based model rankings, the principled aggregation of uncertainty from individual tasks to leaderboard-level rankings remains unaddressed, and variation in models' performance across tasks is frequently obscured. In this work, we introduce a hierarchical framework that constructs model rank intervals with statistical guarantees at both levels: task-level rank confidence intervals from pairwise comparisons, and leaderboard-level rank prediction intervals using a conformal approach. This enables reliable quantification of model rank for each observed task and for new potential tasks. Experiments on simulated data and the TabArena and PromptEval (MMLU) benchmarks show that our method yields statistically valid and informative intervals, enabling reliable, uncertainty-aware model ranking on leaderboards.
The ranking of recommendation algorithms is a challenging problem since model performance is sensitive to dataset characteristics such as sparsity, sequential structure, and scale. This drives a demand for a proper methodology for fair comparison between algorithms. Naive aggregation of performance metrics (e.g., averaging NDCG over benchmarks) can yield misleading rankings, undermining practical selection. To address this problem, we introduce a novel, data-driven ranking methodology based on Bradley-Terry (BT) model. We demonstrate that the obtained ranking depends on key dataset statistics. Additionally, we propose a novel metric for evaluating ranking consistency and demonstrate robustness of our ranking to incomplete data. Finally, we introduce a dataset-specific methodology for ranking algorithms on unseen datasets without running the models, relying on extensions of the Bradley-Terry framework, including BT trees and BT models with covariates.