Organizations: Griffith University · Edith Cowan University · The University of Queensland
Abstract
The rapid advancement of machine learning has led to an unprecedented expansion of model ecosystems, making it increasingly difficult to assess the reliability of newly released models on unseen and unlabeled data. Existing evaluation pipelines typically rely on costly annotation, repeated fine-tuning, or assumptions that do not generalize well to new models. We introduce MetaEvaluator, a cost-effective, model-agnostic framework for fast, label-free evaluation of unseen models across diverse architectures and modalities. MetaEvaluator meta-learns over a pool of reference models to acquire an effective initialization for accurate assessment of unseen models, thereby amortizing evaluation cost and eliminating the need for per-model retraining. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first model-agnostic framework that evaluates new models on unlabeled datasets. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MetaEvaluator delivers stable and accurate performance estimates at substantially lower cost than conventional approaches, enabling scalable benchmarking on unlabeled datasets for emerging models. The code is available at: https://github.com/phkhanhtrinh23/MetaEvaluator.
Meta-learning without labeled data is crucial for real-world applications, where obtaining labeled datasets can be expensive or restricted due to privacy concerns. Data-Free Meta-Learning (DFML) addresses this challenge by leveraging pre-trained models without access to training data. However, existing DFML methods rely on model inversion to generate training data, a process that is generally difficult and computationally expensive due to the need to generate high-dimensional data matching the original distribution. To address this limitation, we propose a novel meta-learning setting that avoids model inversion by jointly leveraging pre-trained models and unlabeled data. Our method generates meta-training tasks by assigning soft labels from pre-trained models to unlabeled data. Since the quality of these tasks can vary, we introduce a task-weighting mechanism based on task confidence and class distribution balance to ensure effective meta-learning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach substantially reduces computational cost and improves generalization, achieving up to 104-fold speedup and 8.4 percent to 36.4 percent improvements in few-shot classification accuracy compared to state-of-the-art DFML methods.
Reliable generative AI models critically rely on expert human annotations to evaluate output quality, yet these "gold" labels are expensive to collect and limited in quantity. Organizations thus often turn to collecting vast but noisy "silver" labels from crowdsourced workers or vendor annotators as proxies for gold labels. Because gold remains the evaluation target, naively aggregating noisy silver labels may introduce bias, and estimators built on sparsely observed gold labels may have high variance to resolve the model performance gaps that guide practical decisions. Model evaluation has become an ongoing operational practice rather than a one-time exercise, with evaluation rounds repeating across model versions, releases, and content domains. A natural question is whether the previous historical evaluation data can be used to improve each new round of evaluation. We introduce HERO (History Enhanced RObust model evaluation), a novel framework that uses historical data to suppress bias (improve reliability) and reduce variance (improve sensitivity) in model performance evaluation. HERO calibrates silver labelers' performance learned from historical gold annotations, and stabilizes the resulting estimator by anchoring it to covariate information measured with high precision in the historical data. HERO can be broadly applied across multiple common evaluation tasks, and remains valid when only a subset of historical labelers appears in the current round. We establish conditions under which the bias and variance reductions hold, showcase HERO's performance in simulation studies, and demonstrate its effectiveness on real-world model evaluation benchmarking datasets.
The open-source model ecosystem now contains hundreds of thousands of pretrained models, yet picking the best model for a new dataset is increasingly infeasible: new models and unbenchmarked datasets emerge continuously, leaving practitioners with no prior records on either side. Existing approaches handle only fragments of this in-the-wild setting: AutoML and transferability estimation select models from small predefined pools or require expensive per-model forward passes on the target dataset, while model routing presupposes a given candidate pool. We introduce ModelLens, a unified framework for model recommendation in the wild. Our key insight is that public leaderboard interactions, though scattered and noisy, collectively trace out an implicit atlas of model capabilities across heterogeneous evaluation settings, a signal rich enough to learn from directly. By learning a performance-aware latent space over model--dataset--metric tuples, ModelLens ranks unseen models on unseen datasets without running candidates on the target dataset. On a new benchmark of 1.62M evaluation records spanning 47K models and 9.6K datasets, ModelLens surpasses baselines that either rely on metadata alone or require running each candidate on the target dataset. Its recommended Top-K pools further improve multiple representative routing methods by up to 81% across diverse QA benchmarks. Case studies on recently released benchmarks further confirm generalization to both text and vision-language tasks.