Evaluation Metrics

Traditional evaluation metrics provides numerical values but often lack comprehensibility, hindering effective differentiation of model performances. Our work addresses this challenge by introducing overlay_dx, a novel evaluation metric measuring the performance of time series prediction models. Overlay_dx is a visual metric that represents the percentage of predictions falling within a confidence interval around actual values. Additionally, once evaluation results are plotted, overlay_dx computes the area under the overlay curve, providing a quantitative measure of alignment between predicted and actual values across different thresholds and predictions. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that our approach offers a unified evaluation framework that combines both visual and numerical assessments, enabling improved model comparison and providing valuable insights for further research and optimization efforts in time series prediction.

Safe reinforcement learning (RL) is commonly formalized as a Constrained Markov Decision Process (CMDP), in which an agent maximizes expected reward while keeping its expected cumulative cost below a specified safety bound. Existing safe RL benchmarks predominantly report whether an algorithm is safe on average, following this expectation-based guarantee. We argue that this convention is insufficient to reliably characterize an algorithm's true safety: it fails to capture how often and how severely the safety bound is violated, whether this holds consistently across tasks and safety bounds, and whether training-time behavior is representative of behavior of the final converged policy. Therefore, we introduce (i) evaluation metrics for safe RL that address each of these concerns and in addition allow for aggregation across tasks and safety bounds. We furthermore define (ii) a safety tier system to systematically categorize and compare algorithms in terms of safety and reliability at both training and for a final policy. Using this framework, we provide (iii) an empirical safety evaluation across multiple safety navigation tasks. Our results show that aggregate metrics, distributional reporting, and task- and safety bound-specific results each reveal information the other metrics cannot. We therefore recommend reporting all three jointly, rather than compressing this information into a single value, as is common practice. We provide SafeRLEval, an open-source evaluation suite to support the reliable characterization of safety in future safe RL research.

Out-of-Distribution (OOD) data poses a significant threat to machine learning models, often leading to model failure during deployment. All existing OOD detection methods are post-hoc, relying on evaluation metrics such as accuracy and AUC-ROC during inference to indirectly assess the model's response to OOD data by measuring deviations. In contrast to existing approaches, the proposed work shifts the paradigm from OOD detection to OOD prediction by proposing a pre-hoc anticipatory framework called PLSP for OOD prediction. We make several key contributions: (a) a dataset-independent metric called the CREDibility Score (CREDS) is proposed for OOD prediction; (b) credibility curves are introduced to study the maximum credibility a model can attain; and (c) credibility heat maps (and volume under surface) are introduced to characterize pre-hoc model behavior across different datasets. This work provides a novel perspective on signal processing under distributional shifts. Experiments across multiple datasets demonstrate that the proposed metric serves as a valuable measure for improving the robustness of machine learning models toward OOD prediction.

Evaluating data-text alignment remains challenging: existing metrics often provide limited explanations for the scores, while prompt-based LLM-as-Judge methods can be expensive and unreliable. We present an end-to-end explainable evaluation metric that fine-tunes a language model to identify omitted, extra, incorrect, and correct data units in a data-text pair. These local judgements are aggregated into precision, recall, and F1 scores, providing both fine-grained diagnostic feedback and an interpretable measure of alignment quality. Across benchmarks, our fine-tuned models outperform LLM-as-Judge methods in error prediction and achieve competitive precision, recall, and F1 scores, while maintaining strong correlation with human judgements. Beyond evaluation, our verifier outputs also provide useful feedback signals for downstream correction and refinement, supporting alignment-oriented improvement of data-to-text and text-to-data. Code and resources are available at https://github.com/guihuzhang/xqdt.

Generative models can produce images nearly indistinguishable from real data, yet rigorous and interpretable evaluation remains challenging. Conventional metrics such as FID provide only scalar scores with limited diagnostic insight. Widely adopted CLIP-based metrics enable semantic evaluation beyond simple training class labels, but inherit limitations from CLIP's training paradigm that restrict attribute-wise analysis. We propose RA-CLIPScore, a novel metric that mitigates these issues and extends CLIP-based evaluation to spatial distribution alignment, measuring whether generated objects adhere to the positional priors found in the training data. RA-CLIPScore introduces dual prompts to decouple competing attributes and leverages local patch tokens to capture fine-grained regional semantics. We evaluate image generative models on their ability to match both attribute and spatial distributions of the training data. Extensive experiments show that RA-CLIPScore provides more robust and interpretable evaluations than prior methods, particularly under distribution misalignment or partially irrelevant textual attributes. We further demonstrate how it reveals spatial biases in generative models. User evaluations confirm that Regional Single Attribute Divergence based on our RA-CLIPScore aligns more closely with human perception of visual diversity than existing semantic metrics.

Feature selection is one of the most important and fundamental tasks in data mining, tackled by a family of methods with an established set of evaluation techniques to measure the quality of a specific method. Most of the methods commonly used for the unsupervised evaluation of feature selection algorithms suffer from critical design flaws which question their unsupervised nature. In this paper, we provide a critical discussion on the established allegedly unsupervised evaluation techniques, and shed light on the reasons why they are not truly unsupervised but, at best, supervised evaluation under an unsupervised downstream task. We also propose a novel, truly unsupervised evaluation framework to measure the quality of the feature selection algorithms without any form of information about the labels. The proposed framework utilizes unsupervised Principal Component Analysis, and optimal transport to measure the quality of the feature selection methods in a truly unsupervised manner.

Although large language models can translate some historical languages surprisingly well, their usefulness in digital humanities workflows is limited by the lack of reliable evaluation. We investigate whether existing automatic evaluation metrics developed for modern languages are reliable in this setting, using translation from Classical Chinese to English as a test case. We introduce a diagnostic framework based on minimal pairs capturing error types salient in scholarly use, probing both reference-based and reference-free metrics for error sensitivity and tolerance to valid variation. We find that all metrics exhibit blind spots, however MetricX24 performs best overall. Our findings highlight the need for more robust and interpretable metrics for historically and culturally distinct translation settings.

Adaptive data-cleaning methods replace manual filtering thresholds with data-driven partitions. However, changing the partition granularity, the number of groups used to segment samples by estimated corruption risk, can implicitly shift the decision boundary and alter the overall number of removed samples. This creates a bias known as removal-budget confounding, where apparent gains in metrics like precision or false-positive rate reflect a smaller removal budget rather than superior corruption discrimination. To address this evaluation bias, we introduce an operating-point-aware evaluation framework that evaluates methods using matched-budget and matched-recall controls alongside threshold-independent metrics (AUROC and AUPRC). We test this framework on a multi-cue adaptive cleaner redesign featuring a reweighted learning-difficulty cue, an auxiliary Euclidean-distance cue, and increased partition granularity intended to isolate clean-but-difficult samples. While naive evaluations (assessing configurations at their own induced operating points) suggest substantial performance improvements for the redesign, these gains disappear once operating points are equalized. False-positive decomposition reveals that clean-but-difficult samples primarily drive error counts at low corruption rates, become threshold-dependent at moderate corruption, and contribute negligibly under severe corruption. Experiments on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet-100 demonstrate that most performance differences observed in naive evaluation shrink or vanish at low-to-moderate corruption when operating points are matched. True ranking advantages only remain in specific low-prevalence settings and in high-recall regions under severe corruption. These findings highlight that adaptive cleaning methods must be benchmarked at matched operating points to ensure performance gains reflect genuine corruption discrimination.

Task difficulty dictates an agent's likelihood of success, and estimating it without rollouts means forecasting this directly from a task description before executing costly simulations in stateful environments. Reliable estimates would therefore allow environment designers to calibrate evaluation benchmarks and construct progressive training curricula. This becomes increasingly important as agents move into long-horizon domains, where empirical trial-and-error is a severe computational bottleneck. Prior work on early prediction is limited to static tasks or isolated coding environments, often relying on narrow features and inaccurate evaluation metrics. We study \textit{ex ante} difficulty prediction across 17 agentic benchmarks spanning coding, mathematics, machine learning, web navigation, function calling, and other domains. We show that AUC can mask poor difficulty estimates, identify token-level entropy as a useful predictive signal, and show how residuals between expected and observed difficulty can expose hidden environment flaws such as contamination and infeasibility.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, which can outperform conventional automatic evaluation metrics that rely on reference texts. However, LLM evaluators tend to generate particular scores regardless of the context of the evaluated text, which is known as scoring bias. This study proposes a novel method to mitigate this scoring bias. An LLM is instructed to randomly generate number tokens, and the latent numerical bias of the LLM is identified by measuring the deviation of the observed distribution of numbers from the uniform distribution. A definition of a downstream task, for which an LLM evaluator is used, is added to the prompts for random number generation to measure task-specific latent number bias. In the evaluation by an LLM, the token generation probabilities for a given input are rectified considering the LLM's latent number bias. Results of the experiment on four different tasks, evaluation of LLM alignment, evaluation of summarization, Semantic Textual Similarity, and Semantic Textual Relatedness, demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms the baselines, including an LLM without debiasing and previous calibration methods. In addition, it is confirmed that scoring bias varies across LLMs, tasks, and score ranges, indicating the importance of measuring latent number bias as the case may be.

Synthetic histopathology image generation has emerged as an approach that may address data scarcity in computational pathology, yet current evaluation methodologies may not fully assess synthetic data quality for medical applications. This work investigates and addresses limitations in existing evaluation metrics, investigating an approach for assessing synthetic histopathology image quality through domain-specific metrics and downstream task validation. We show that conventional synthetic data evaluation metrics such as Frechet Inception Distance (FID) and Inception Score (IS) may have limitations when applied to histopathology images due to their reliance on ImageNet-pretrained feature extractors. To address these limitations, we propose for consideration modified FID and IS approaches utilizing foundation models pretrained on digital pathology datasets, supplemented by precision-recall based metrics as part of an additional quality assessment. Using conditional denoising diffusion models trained on four benchmark datasets, with a two-step training approach, we generated synthetic datasets with systematically varied quality characteristics. We also measured the correlation between the synthetic data quality metrics with downstream nuclei segmentation performance using common metrics including the aggregated Jaccard index (AJI+) and the Dice coefficient. The study results suggest that pathology-specific metrics may provide improved discriminative power. Specifically, the modified Inception Score indicates higher correlation with downstream task performance (r=0.6096 with AJI+, p=0.0122), compared to the original IS (r=0.0708, p=0.7944). Our observations indicate that increasing the variety of generated training data has a higher positive correlation with segmentation model performance than improving the visual fidelity of individual generated images.

Reference-based text evaluation metrics, which are widely used to assess natural language generation systems, score a candidate response by comparing it with a reference response. The reliability of an evaluation metric is usually judged by its statistical correlation with human ratings. However, as these metrics are increasingly used as optimization objectives, correlation alone is no longer sufficient: agents may strategically game the evaluation metric. We study this issue through two complementary notions of alignment. A metric is statistically aligned if it correlates with human ratings and strategically aligned if it resists perturbations that do not add task-relevant information. We make two contributions. First, we propose test principles for reference-based metrics consisting of human-rating correlation, degradation sensitivity, and manipulation robustness. These principles evaluate whether a metric agrees with human judgments, penalizes low-effort information loss, and resists strategic score inflation. Second, we develop a unified design framework for mutual-information-based metrics that decomposes existing and new metrics into four choices: information measure, estimation method, text representation, and prediction mechanism. Across peer review, summarization, and question answering, we find that strong human-rating correlation does not imply strategic alignment: LLM-as-a-Judge achieves high correlation but is susceptible to manipulation. In contrast, mutual-information-based metrics substantially improve manipulation robustness. Our framework also uncovers a new metric that achieves the strongest overall robustness in our experiments while remaining competitive on human-rating correlation.

The rapid growth of scholarly literature has made identifying relevant publications increasingly difficult, and conventional search systems still depend heavily on manually formulated queries and effortful manual inspection. Generative large language models (LLMs) offer a more flexible alternative, supporting literature retrieval and the screening of candidate studies against eligibility criteria. This chapter surveys 34 peer-reviewed papers applying generative LLMs to these two tasks, identified via a Boolean search over the OpenAIRE Graph (1,589 records screened to 34 inclusions). Reviewed studies are characterised by LLMs employed, model access and adaptation, prompting and architectural techniques, ground-truth sources, and evaluation metrics.

Instruction-based Image Editing (IIE) aims to transform a given image into a new one based on textual instructions. Advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have accelerated progress toward practical ``one-sentence image editing" systems. This survey presents a systematic taxonomy and comprehensive review of IIE research, structured around five core dimensions: (1) task definition and hierarchical categorization of editing operations, (2) methodologies for training data construction, (3) architectural evolution from GAN-based to diffusion and autoregressive paradigms, (4) standardized evaluation metrics and benchmark development, and (5) introduction of commercial solutions. Our analysis shows critical technological milestones across model generations. We further propose a Comprehensive, in-Depth, and Diagnostic benchmark for IIE task (CDD-IIE Bench), which can rigorously assess the multiple aspects of model performance. Through empirical comparisons of open-source solutions, we highlight their respective capabilities and limitations. Finally, we discuss future research directions to advance the field.

Partial differential equation (PDE) discovery aims to identify from data the governing law of a physical system. Constituting a cornerstone of scientific advancement, it has become during the past decade a major line of research in the rapidly evolving field of Physics-informed Machine Learning (PiML). Among the remaining open problems to address in this domain, the post-hoc evaluation of discovered PDEs raises the particular difficulty of being multifaceted. Indeed, it requires jointly considering predictive accuracy, physical consistency, interpretability, and out-of-distribution generalization capacity. Given that some of these properties are conflicting, it is worth noting that the wide range of existing evaluation metrics only partially address the overall problem, potentially leading to overly interpreted conclusions about the validity of a presumed new physical theory. From an abundant literature spanning machine learning, numerical analysis, information theory or symbolic regression, we propose, to our knowledge, the first taxonomy of PDE evaluation metrics, and discuss their advantages and limitations in depth. Based on the observation that evaluation is often achieved on a case-by-case basis and that a universally accepted methodology remains elusive, we further provide recommendations with the aim of promoting standardized and reliable practices, before sketching promising future lines of research in this field. We argue that this paper is intended both for ML experts who design new PDE discovery algorithms and for users of these methods aiming, in real applications, to discover and validate well-founded scientific laws.

Anomaly detection is inherently characterised by severe class imbalance, making the interpretation of evaluation metrics challenging. Although metrics such as AUROC, AUPR, F1-score, and MCC are widely used, their values convey different meanings depending on the anomaly ratio. In this work, we analyse the behaviour of those four common anomaly detection metrics under varying levels of imbalance. We focus on the study of metric landscapes, visualisations that relate metric values to true positive and true negative rates, providing an intuitive view of metric preferences and stability. Our analysis offers practical guidance for interpreting and comparing anomaly detection results across datasets with different imbalance ratios.

Face Image Quality Assessment (FIQA) aims to estimate the utility of facial images for reliable recognition. The evaluation of FIQA methods is predominantly based on the Error-versus-Discard Characteristic (EDC), which evaluates performance by progressively discarding low-quality samples and measuring recognition error on the retained subset. In this work, we demonstrate that the widely used EDC protocol has fundamental limitations: Test-Set Divergence and Threshold Drift, which together limit the reliability and comparability of FIQA methods. To address this, we propose discard-based EDC variants and a rank-based Rank Consistency Evaluation (RCE) metric that operates on the entire test set without discarding samples, using a fixed decision threshold. Extensive experiments on five datasets, four face recognition models, and 15 state-of-the-art FIQA methods demonstrate both the limitations of EDC and the effectiveness of the proposed approaches in enabling a more reliable and comparable evaluation. Despite evaluated on face images only, the limitations arise from the EDC protocol rather than the biometric modality, suggesting a broader applicability to biometric quality assessment in general.

Self-evolving agent systems improve by creating, revising, and retiring their own skills, but every such loop rests on a hidden assumption: a reliable evaluation metric already exists. In many real applications it does not. We make three claims. First, metrics can be \emph{evolved}: our metric loop searches compositions of small drawback detectors under a full evolutionary lifecycle, trained to agree with a ten-item anchored reference set, regularized by consensus over unlabeled outputs, and audited against a held-out anchor it never reads, yielding a transparent, inspectable metric rather than an opaque judge. Second, since no metric exists to beat, the yardstick is recovering what an accurate metric would have enabled, and \emph{Double Ratchet}, our co-evolution of the metric with a lifecycle-managed skill loop, does so: across code generation (MBPP+), enterprise text-to-SQL (Spider~2.0-Snow), and reference-free report generation, it retains 88--110% of the held-out lift achieved by the same skill loop driven by ground truth or the best available rubric. Third, safety comes from anchor discipline plus outer audits: removing anchor guards collapses the metric into a vacuous detector while removing the lifecycle does not; and when evolved skills gamed the report rubric, an independent judge caught it, one detector repaired it, and a task-aware judge then preferred the evolved outputs over the pre-evolution baseline in 77% of decided pairs. We argue this failure-expecting architecture is the right default wherever no reliable automatic verifier exists.

Point-adjustment (PA), long the default scoring protocol in time-series anomaly detection (TSAD), was shown by Kim et al. (2022) to award near-perfect F1 to random scores. The field migrated to replacement metrics: PA%K, range-based precision/recall, affiliation precision/recall, and Volume-Under-the-Surface (VUS) ROC/PR. But did the fix work? Every robustness check to date is proposer-run or theoretical; no independent, adversarial, SOTA-relative audit on real benchmarks exists. We provide one. We stress-test 12 adopted metrics against trivial and adversarial no-skill score generators on the 250-series UCR Anomaly Archive (primary) plus five further benchmarks (SMD, SMAP, MSL, NAB, PSM), under a pre-registered SOTA-relative gameability criterion (a metric is gamed on a series if a no-skill generator reaches >=90% of the best real detector's score). The fix is only partial: affiliation-F1 (gamed on 99% of series) and every ROC-based metric tested (all roughly 62-64%) are gamed by no-skill detectors, genuinely so (real detectors score 0.97-1.00 on the very series they game), while the PR-based metrics and PA%K resist (14-18%). A decisive, one-directional McNemar split: VUS-ROC is gamed on 119 series where its sibling VUS-PR is not, and the reverse on none. The ROC-over-PR direction replicates across all five further benchmarks and never reverses, but the absolute gameability rate is benchmark-dependent and no single metric stays safe on all six (even VUS-PR is gamed on NAB). We release a pip-installable stress-test harness with all metric implementations vendored at frozen commits, plus a metric-selection decision protocol: prefer a PR-based metric or PA%K, treat affiliation-F1 and the ROC-AUC variants as gameable, and verify per benchmark rather than assuming robustness.

Quantifying abstractiveness in generated summaries is essential for evaluating summarization models beyond surface-level metrics like ROUGE. We introduce Reference Abstraction (RA), Summary Abstraction (SA), and Abstraction Ratio (AR) -- a set of principled heuristic metrics that measure how much a summary diverges from extractive copying of the source text. The formulation uses the harmonic mean of document lengths modulated by a cubic non-overlap factor, yielding dimensionally consistent, bounded output with non-linear sensitivity to the extractive-abstractive boundary. Evaluation on 100 XSUM documents across four summarization models (BART-large-cnn, Pegasus-xsum, DistilBart, MT5-small) demonstrates that the metrics successfully discriminate between extractive models (SA ~ 0.12-0.26) and abstractive models (SA ~ 0.96-1.77), and that the Abstraction Ratio identifies summaries requiring manual evaluation for potential hallucination. Code and results are available at https://github.com/katweNLP/AbstractionStudy.

Progress in colonoscopy polyp segmentation is routinely reported through leaderboard comparisons on a small set of public benchmarks. We argue that this apparent progress is difficult to verify: a systematic audit of \textbf{27 papers} published between 2015 and 2026 reveals three structural problems in how the community evaluates models. \textbf{First}, 25 of 27 papers \textit{omit the Hausdorff distance}. Hausdorff distance is a boundary-accuracy metric with direct clinical relevance for detecting flat or small polyps, and is a standard in radiotherapy segmentation. \textbf{Second}, at least five \textit{incompatible train/test split protocols} co-exist across papers reporting results on the same two datasets (Kvasir-SEG and CVC-ClinicDB), making published Dice scores non-comparable even when they appear in the same leaderboard column. \textbf{Third}, 26 of 27 papers make \textit{performance claims without any statistical significance test}. Strikingly, four papers published \emph{after} the Metrics Reloaded framework~\cite{metricsreloaded2024} (Maier-Hein et al., \textit{Nature Methods} 2024) perpetuate these same problems, suggesting that general-purpose metric guidance has not yet reached the colonoscopy sub-community. To show these problems are not merely cosmetic, we re-evaluate five representative models under three controlled protocols with a single uniform scorer, and find that the reported metric conceals large boundary and recall failures, that the ``best'' model changes with the metric, and that near-tied rankings reverse across random splits. We propose a five-point \textbf{Polyp Segmentation Reporting Checklist}~(PSRC) as a lightweight, domain-adapted corrective.

This paper reports an empirical study evaluating the relevance of several RAG metrics. The experiment is based on a question-answering dataset created by human annotators from business data. The generated responses and retrieved spans of a RAG system are scored using evaluation metrics from four libraries (Ragas, DeepEval, RAGChecker, Opik). These metrics are compared to scores given by two evaluators, as well as to standard metrics such as recall. An analysis of correlations is conducted. Finally, we highlight certain limitations of our methodology, compare it to those used in the literature, and suggest some avenues for future research. This paper is an English translation of a paper originally published in the French-speaking workshop EvalLLM (Brabant, 2026).

Newly developed items must ordinarily be field tested before their psychometric properties are known, creating a cold start problem for item calibration. Predicting item parameters from features is a long standing measurement problem dating back to the Linear Logistic Test Model; modern text embeddings now automate the design matrices traditionally specified by hand. We propose an evaluation framework combining regularized regression on item text embeddings, repeated cross validated R squared reported with its resampling standard deviation, and two performance upper bounds: a reliability ceiling derived from parameter standard errors, and a design ceiling derived from simulation based power calibration. Applying this framework to a mathematics item bank (EEDI) and a medical licensure benchmark (BEA 2024), we find that item difficulty is highly predictable from text (repeated cross validated R squared = 0.53, or about 57% of its reliability ceiling), whereas discrimination and pseudo guessing appear less predictable. However, evaluating these results against our ceilings reveals that this apparent hierarchy stems from target reliability rather than text signal strength: text uniformly recovers 57 to 63% of the reliable variance across difficulty targets, whereas the 3PL pseudo guessing parameter has a reliability ceiling near zero, making it an unviable target at current precision. On BEA, embedding based regression matches leaderboard RMSE despite explaining almost no variance, highlighting the critical need for scale free metrics and explicit ceilings in benchmarking. Finally, we show that a single train and test split can inflate apparent accuracy by 0.1 to 0.15 in R squared, underscoring the necessity of repeated cross validation for calibration support applications and future benchmark construction.

Language models (LMs) exhibit problematic biases, such as stereotypes. Effectively analyzing and mitigating such biases requires accurate and generalizable evaluation methods of the underlying associations. Some existing approaches focus on downstream metrics that analyze associations in generated text. Since generated text content can vary drastically across LMs, such metrics often require specialized evaluation datasets, which limits the generalization of such downstream metrics. In contrast, upstream metrics examine LMs at the fundamental level of embeddings or continuation probabilities, enabling principled association analyses across LMs. Yet, to date, no upstream metric for generative LMs has uncovered a strong relationship with real-world associations, including those measured in generated text. To address this gap, we introduce the Relative Probability Association Metric (RPAM), an association evaluation metric for generative LMs. For three LMs of different quality of language generation and purpose (Mistral-7B-Instruct, Mistral-7B, and GPT-2) and well-studied evaluation datasets (WEAT-WS, Bellezza, WS-353, and SST2), we find a strong relationship between upstream RPAM measurements and corresponding implicit and explicit associations observed in humans, as well as biases measured downstream with LM-specific tasks, outperforming prior record values where applicable.

We propose a unified algebraic framework for classification performance evaluation that encompasses binary, multiclass, multilabel, ordinal, hierarchical, cost-sensitive, and soft-label settings within a single formalism. The foundation is a representation of actual and predicted labels as binary indicator matrices, combined with three aggregation operators -- global, column-wise, and row-wise -- that correspond exactly to micro, macro/weighted, and exemplar averaging. Any binary performance measure expressed in terms of true/positive/negative counts extends automatically to all settings by substituting these operators, generating multiclass and multilabel versions without measure-specific derivations. The framework further accommodates soft classifier outputs via argmax or thresholding, soft ground truth via triangular norms, ordinal classification via membership functions or cumulative encodings, and cost-sensitive evaluation via a cost matrix that subsumes MAE and MSE as special cases. We establish several theoretical results: micro-averaging equals denominator-weighted macro-averaging; the product $t$-norm is the unique one preserving the confusion-matrix partition; skew-invariant measures are characterised as functions of recall and specificity; and micro-precision, micro-recall, and micro-$F_1$ are all equal to accuracy in multiclass settings. Empirical illustrations on synthetic and real data confirm the theoretical findings.

Benchmarking immersive media coding solutions, especially in the standardization context, requires reliable and reproducible subjective quality assessment (QA) procedures, along with objective quality metrics that remain accurate across different distortion types. This paper presents a standardized workflow for light field QA, developed and deployed in the context of JPEG Pleno standardization activities, which integrates benchmark generation, a hybrid subjective evaluation, and objective metric analysis into a common workflow. The benchmark is designed to encompass not only traditional coding-only artifacts but also distortions that arise in processing pipelines in which light field encoding is accompanied with view synthesis and reconstruction techniques. A hybrid subjective method is proposed enabling fine-grained assessment by combining reference-anchored quality rating with targeted pairwise refinement in perceptually ambiguous regions. The reliability of subjective scores is verified using statistical consistency analyses between observers of two cohorts. Finally, a large set of objective metrics is systematically evaluated in terms of global prediction accuracy, local agreement in ambiguous quality regions, and robustness across distortion families. The results show that several metrics achieve strong agreement for coding-only stimuli, but their performance consistently drops when view synthesis distortions are included. The analysis further highlights the importance of view-pooling strategy in the design of future light field quality metrics. The work provides a reproducible and standardization-ready framework for fine-grained light field QA, while identifying key limitations of current objective metrics under emerging coding pipelines. The subjectively annotated dataset is publicly available at https://plenodb.jpeg.org/lfqa/objectivecfp.

Mutual information (MI) estimation is a central problem in machine learning and statistics; however, existing benchmarks typically evaluate estimators on simplified, low-dimensional distributions, leaving their performance on complex, realistic data largely unexplored. We address this gap with a comprehensive benchmarking framework grounded in a unified copula-theoretic perspective that subsumes existing benchmarks as special cases. Within this framework, we propose two complementary families of tests: a copula-first family that systematically varies ground-truth MI, dimensionality, and marginal complexity using synthetic and flow-based transformations; and a marginals-first family that couples real-world image data with controlled dependency structures, extending the classic same-class-pairing paradigm. We use this suite to extensively evaluate three classes of estimators: non-parametric, discriminative, and generative. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, our results indicate that there is no universal winner: each category can systematically outperform all other estimators under specific setups. By analyzing these cases, we identify fundamental estimation barriers and propose new tests that more effectively stress these specific limitations. We share the open source code at https://github.com/VanessB/mutinfo.

Evaluation metrics are central to binary target segmentation because they determine how progress is measured, compared, and interpreted. In this paper, target denotes the task-defined positive region to be segmented rather than a generic foreground object. It may be salient, camouflaged, transparent, glass-like, mirror-like, shadow-like, lesion-like, or defined by other application-specific semantics. We treat existing metrics as compositions of modular design choices rather than isolated formulas. The proposed framework decomposes each metric into five stages covering prediction representation, target extraction, target matching, score computation, and metric reporting. We use this framework to analyze representative metrics and show how newer metrics address specific limits in earlier protocols. The stage choices keep each metric's assumptions visible. We then discuss the design space opened by the framework and its implications for task-aware evaluation protocols. Reference code is available at https://github.com/lartpang/PySODMetrics.

For predictive models, the often-reported performance metrics are the loss and accuracy. In synchronous Brain- Computer Interface (BCI) systems, these metrics are informative for most BCI paradigms; however, for Event-Related Potential (ERP) applications the spelling rate, which measures the number of characters correctly selected is more important as it influences the estimation of information transfer rate (ITR) and any related metric measuring spelling performance. Moreover, ERP-based BCIs hold imbalanced data class distributions, which require reporting metrics that can handle the imbalance, such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC). In this work, we study the correlation of the spelling rate with 13 metrics to identify which among them best reflect user spelling performance and how they are affected by trial repetition. The Results of two datasets (a private LARESI ERP dataset and the public OpenBMI ERP dataset) favor the Brier score, Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), and the metrics that account for class imbalance in binary classification: ROC AUC, area under the Precision-Recall curve (PR AUC), Average Precision (AP), and partial AUC (pAUC). These findings encourage researchers and practitioners to report those metrics in ERP-based BCI experiments.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) systems, built on pretrained vision-language models (VLMs), have shown rapidly improving performance on robot manipulation benchmarks. These gains are commonly interpreted as evidence that semantic representations learned from internet-scale data transfer to physical execution generalization. This position paper argues that the assumption underlying this interpretation -- that semantic generalization is sufficient to support physical action decisions -- has not been independently verified and cannot be tested under current evaluation protocols. We support this claim by decomposing VLA policies into semantic mapping and physical action decision, and showing that task success rate -- the dominant evaluation metric -- cannot distinguish between these two sources of capability. As a result, improvements in benchmark performance are consistent with multiple competing explanations, including semantic matching, distributional overlap, and genuine physical generalization. We further argue that this identifiability gap has been reinforced through narrative drift, whereby successive systems inherit and strengthen prior interpretations of performance gains without isolating the underlying causal mechanism. To address this limitation, we propose a research direction based on evaluation designs that introduce controlled variation to separately measure semantic and physical generalization. Such designs make it possible to causally attribute performance without requiring access to model internals, and to empirically assess the role of VLM backbones as semantic interfaces rather than implicit sources of physical competence. Our goal is not to refute the role of VLMs in robotics, but to clarify the conditions under which claims of physical generalization can be meaningfully evaluated.

Sign Languages (SLs) are the primary means of communication for millions of deaf individuals, yet existing evaluation metrics for generated SL remain simplistic and poorly aligned with human judgements. We introduce BackTranslation2.0, a linguistically grounded evaluation metric for text-to-sign translation that moves beyond naïve backtranslation. Our approach adopts an agentic framework in which a deterministic pipeline orchestrates a suite of specialised tools to assess four scoring dimensions - grammatical correctness, phonological accuracy, motion fluency, and generation fidelity - aligned with human rater assessments. Tool outputs are not treated independently: a set of large language model (LLM)-based cross-referential comparison modules evaluates consistency across tools and checks outputs against linguistic expectations, enabling structured reasoning over grammatical, phonological, and motion-level evidence. Final dimension scores are computed through deterministic weighted formulas over validated tool outputs. To validate BackTranslation2.0, we introduce and evaluate on a British Sign Language (BSL) dataset rated in a human rater study across the same quality dimensions, following a protocol developed in collaboration between linguists and deaf experts, benchmarking against six baseline metrics. Our method demonstrates strong correlation with human judgements across all dimensions, providing a more comprehensive, interpretable, and linguistically principled evaluation framework for sign language production systems.

External indexes can be used for cluster evaluation when ground truth is available. We review the most common external validity indexes focusing on set-matching-based measures. We recommend centroid index (CI), because it is an intuitive cluster-level measure with an explainable result. If we need a more fine-tuned, point-level measure, there are more choices. Pair-set index (PSI) provides a normalized score which is not biased by cluster sizes. If all points should matter equally, then clustering accuracy (ACC) or any other set-matching measure is suitable.

Uncertainty estimates in machine learning are typically evaluated using generic metrics such as the negative log-likelihood and expected calibration error, yet good performance on such metrics does not necessarily imply high utility in downstream decisions. We introduce decision-alignment, a criterion that reveals which evaluation metrics meaningfully align with downstream utilities. Applying this framework, we show that many widely used uncertainty metrics are either misaligned with common decision problems or encode pathological prior beliefs about the downstream task. We then propose prior-weighted utility metrics, a special class of proper scoring rules that provides decision-aligned uncertainty evaluation. Across benchmark experiments and real-world case studies, our metrics consistently align with realized decision utility, while conventional metrics do not. Our results surface flaws in the current UQ evaluation protocol and offer a principled extension of existing metrics toward decision-relevant UQ evaluation.

Artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance what people who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) are able to do with their systems. However, evaluating AI-powered AAC interfaces can be difficult. People are intersectional beings and current evaluation metrics can struggle to capture the multifaceted and nuanced desires people may have for their AAC. We explore the complicated nature of six AAC problem spaces, explore how AI might be used in these spaces, and suggest more robust methods of evaluation that take the intersectional nuances of people into account. We also discuss broader issues that arise across these problem spaces and how they could be addressed using our proposed evaluation methods.

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) in non-English clinical settings is challenged by multiscript variability, where the same term may appear in multiple valid orthographic forms. Conventional string-matching evaluation metrics often underestimate ASR performance by treating orthographic variants as errors. To address this issue, we introduce MultiClin, a clinical ASR benchmark designed to evaluate robustness to multiscript variability. Experiments across diverse ASR models show that multiscript-aware evaluation provides a fairer assessment of recognition quality than conventional single-reference evaluation. We further investigate the impact of script consistency during training and find that inconsistent script mappings increase orthographic uncertainty and hinder model convergence, with a balanced 50% mapping ratio producing the highest entropy. In contrast, script unification consistently yields the best ASR performance. Our dataset and code are publicly available at: https://github.com/aitrics-ronaldo/Interspeech_MultiClin.

Evaluation in machine learning is typically treated as a neutral measurement process. However, in operational information systems, evaluation outcomes are often conditioned by the processes used to generate labels. This paper does not seek to improve classification performance. Instead, it examines the validity of performance measurement under differing label-authority regimes. This issue is particularly relevant in large-scale metadata-driven systems, where labels are often incomplete, inconsistent, or weakly supervised. We introduce evaluation sovereignty, defined as the degree to which performance metrics are independent of label authority and supervision regime, and propose a multi-track evaluation framework that systematically varies training and evaluation label sources. Using hierarchical multi-label classification on large-scale scientific metadata, we demonstrate that models exhibiting strong performance under operational ("silver") evaluation degrade substantially under independent ("gold") evaluation, particularly for fine-grained classification. For example, Micro-F1 decreases from approximately 0.54 to 0.03. Notably, ranking-based metrics remain above baseline, revealing a divergence between latent model signal and classification validity. These findings suggest that commonly reported performance metrics may reflect alignment with labeling processes rather than true predictive capability. We therefore reconceptualize evaluation validity as a system-level property shaped by label governance and provide a practical methodology for auditing intelligent systems operating under weak supervision.

Reliable evaluation of instance segmentation models requires metrics that accurately and consistently reflect segmentation quality. However, the metrics most widely used in biological imaging carry fundamental mathematical weaknesses: hard Intersection-over-Union (IoU) thresholds that produce discontinuous, low sensitivity scoring; per-object normalization that distorts scores under object size variation; and greedy or one-to-many matching procedures that yield non-optimal, order-dependent correspondences. Together, these properties produce unintuitive and unreliable model rankings under common failure modes such as split cells, merged cells, and cell boundary imprecision. We propose Maximum Matching Accuracy (MMA), a threshold-free continuous metric that finds a globally optimal one-to-one matching between predicted and ground truth objects and aggregates total overlap using per-pixel normalization. We evaluate MMA against AP@50, PQ, SEG, and AJI across three experiments: synthetic failure cases, progressive corruption tests, and a model ranking comparison. MMA produces scores that are more stable, more sensitive, and more interpretable than existing alternatives, providing a principled foundation for fair instance segmentation benchmarking in biological cell imaging.

We propose Differences in Detection (DnD), an intuitive method to compare two object detection models. Based on the same matching algorithm, it complements the standard metrics of mean Average Precision ($mAP$) and TIDE error analysis with the ability to compare two models directly. More specifically, we calculate the intersection of ground truth labels that are recognized by both models, followed by the corresponding difference sets and the complement set of ground truth labels that are missed by both models. The resulting comparison is more direct and intuitive than a comparison of independent summary statistics. It reveals individual and shared mistakes and becomes particularly interesting when combined with error types. In this case, the differences in detection errors can be analyzed naturally in a standard confusion matrix. While valuable in itself, we believe that one of the best applications of DnD is to guide explainability methods such as ODAM towards metric-relevant examples, grounded in structured subsets. The code for our method is available here: https://github.com/JohannesTheo/differences-in-detection

Evaluating the quality of automatically generated keyphrases remains a complex challenge. Traditional metrics either rely on exact lexical matching or consider semantic similarity while ignoring prediction ranking, both of which misalign with how humans judge informativeness and relevance. We introduce Semantic R-Precision (SemR-p), a novel evaluation metric that integrates semantic similarity into the rank-aware R-Precision framework. Designed from a human-centric perspective and inspired by Information Retrieval metrics, SemR-p rewards semantically relevant keyphrases that appear early in the output list. We conducted extensive analyses to assess its semantic sensitivity, ranking awareness, and discriminative power across models and datasets. The results suggest that SemR-p offers a complementary lens for evaluating keyphrase predictions, helping to better reflect user-centred notions of relevance alongside traditional lexical and semantic matching metrics.

T2I models cannot effectively capture sentiment from various types of text, including diaries, as they primarily focus on visual object-related patterns rather than contextual emotional understanding. This paper proposes an emotion-aware text-to-image pipeline that generates children's hand drawing style images from short Korean diary entries. The proposed pipeline employs Qwen3-8B for recognising implicit sentiment from short diaries, and Stable Diffusion 3.5 Medium fine-tuned with LoRA on children's drawing images with emotion-based trigger words for image generation. Additionally, this paper presents experiments examining the effect of emotion trigger words on generated images and discusses the limitations of CLIP Score as an evaluation metric for emotion-aware image generation.

Multi-view object association is an important computer vision problem that underlies many multi-camera perception tasks. While this task is naturally formulated as a constrained one-to-one matching problem, recent works heavily rely on pairwise ranking metrics like AP and FPR-95 for model evaluation. We highlight a fundamental mismatch between these metrics and the actual assignment objective. Theoretically, we show that AP and FPR-95 can be imperfect even when the assignment is already correct, and that Sinkhorn-based normalization can make them perfect. Conversely, optimal pairwise ranking can still lead to incorrect assignments. We validate this mismatch in practice by using our Sinkhorn-based normalization as a controlled post-processing stress test. We show that optimizing just a few post-processing parameters significantly boosts AP and FPR-95 without corresponding improvements in assignment-level metrics such as ACC and IPAA.

Human disagreement is ubiquitous and well-known in labeling. However, variation in explanations, captured through token-level human rationales, remains far less explored. At the same time, it is unclear how to best evaluate human labels and rationales -- or even how to best aggregate rationales beyond majority vote -- in light of this variation. Yet, rationales may provide additional insights into the richness of human reasoning, that may differ in style, values and interpretations -- especially in subjective NLP tasks like hate speech detection. In this work, we unify diverse models, training strategies, loss functions, and existing evaluation metrics under a single protocol by systematically re-implementing them across different label and rationale representation spaces. Classification metrics are organized around two key properties -- predictive and distributional -- while explainability metrics through three complementary dimensions: plausibility, faithfulness, and complexity. In this unified supervision framework, we evaluate model behavior across classification and explainability metrics, as well as metric sensitivity to the choice of label (hard and soft) and rationale representation space (hard, intermediate and soft). Results show that both hard and soft metrics favor softer representations, highlighting their effectiveness in capturing variation and the need to rethink evaluation in subjective NLP.

Data streams are nowadays among the most frequently analyzed data structures, with the concept drift posing a major challenge encountered by processing systems. Despite the proposition of numerous solutions to counteract the accuracy degeneration due to concept drift, the scientific community has not yet established a unified framework for evaluating the concept drift detection task. Existing research often relies on classification quality metrics, but these can be affected by multiple factors and may not reliably reflect drift detection quality. In this work, we present an in-depth overview of the relationship between metrics for quantifying drift detection quality and classification performance in synthetic nonstationary data streams. The proposed research studies eight drift detection quality metrics in relation to the classifier's performance across seven synthetic data stream generation tools, additionally considering drift dynamics as a factor. The studies aim to identify the most informative set of drift detection quality metrics and provide a deep understanding of the method's evaluation.

Conditional generative models have recently achieved remarkable success in various applications. However, a suitable metric for evaluating the reliability of these models, which takes into account their inherent uncertainty, is still lacking. Existing metrics, which typically assess a single output, may fail to capture the variability or potential risks in generation. In this paper, we propose a novel evaluation metric called reliability score based on conformal prediction, which measures the worst-case performance within the prediction set at a pre-specified confidence level. However, computing this score is challenging due to the high-dimensional nature of the output space and the nonconvexity of both the metric function and the prediction set. To efficiently compute this score, we introduce Conformal ReLiability (CReL), a framework that can (i) construct the prediction set with desired coverage; and (ii) accurately optimize the reliability score within the constructed prediction set. We provide theoretical results on coverage and demonstrate empirically that our method produces more informative prediction sets than existing approaches. Experiments on synthetic data and the image-to-text and text-to-image tasks further demonstrate the interpretability of our new metric, and the validity and effectiveness of our computational framework. Source code can be found at https://ggc29.github.io/CReL/.

Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) is widely used to evaluate image generators, yet lower FID does not always correspond to better sample quality. We show that this mismatch depends in part on the geometry of the reference dataset. In a controlled study across six datasets, distributional density and effective rank significantly explain how FID changes as sample quality improves. Concentrated datasets tend to yield more favorable FID trends, whereas more dispersed datasets can make FID worsen despite better samples. Attribution to precision and recall and ablations with alternative feature spaces and distances support the same conclusion. These results suggest that distributional metrics should be interpreted together with the geometry of the reference dataset for more reliable benchmarking.

Image quality in modern imaging systems emerges from the coupled effects of the sensor, optics, and computational reconstruction. Ultra-thin metalenses offer a path toward substantial miniaturization of optical modules, but practical designs often exhibit pronounced chromatic and field-dependent aberrations that necessitate computational reconstruction. In current metalens pipelines, reconstruction models are commonly trained and selected using distortion-based fidelity objectives, such as PSNR, yet these proxies can be weakly correlated with human preference and downstream utility, reflecting the well-known perception--distortion trade-off. We introduce MetaRanker, a human-in-the-loop active ranking framework that formalizes metalens image quality in terms of semantic interpretability, defined as the degree to which humans can reliably recognize objects and structures in the presence of optical artifacts. MetaRanker combines a probabilistic preference model with uncertainty-aware query selection, and leverages vision--language models to provide lightweight semantic priors. Importantly, these priors are used only to guide the sampling of informative comparisons; human judgments remain the primary supervision signal throughout. Across real-world and synthetic metalens datasets with distinct degradation profiles, MetaRanker produces rankings that align most closely with human assessments, while reducing the number of pairwise annotations required by approximately 80% relative to exhaustive pairwise evaluation. Finally, we show that standard image quality assessment metrics exhibit limited alignment with human interpretability in the metalens domain, positioning MetaRanker as a practical step toward perceptually grounded metalens evaluation and co-design.

Tool-using agents often incur substantial computational cost due to long reasoning chains and iterative tool usage. In practical scenarios, many tasks become infeasible under constrained tool environments, where the capabilities required for successful task completion are unavailable. Detecting infeasible tasks and stopping execution early can significantly reduce unnecessary execution cost. In this work, we propose FeasiGen, an automatic pipeline for constructing infeasible agent tasks by identifying the critical tools required for successful task completion. Our approach extracts tool-calling traces from successful executions across multiple agent systems, identifies critical tools consistently shared across diverse execution strategies, and masks these tools to automatically transform solvable tasks into infeasible ones. Human verification confirms that the infeasibility annotations for our constructed tasks achieve over 94% accuracy. We further introduce feasibility-aware evaluation metrics for measuring whether agents can recognize infeasible tasks and stop execution appropriately. Extensive evaluations across nine models reveal substantially weak infeasibility detection ability, with false continue rate reaching up to 73.9%. We further observe that multi-agent architectures significantly reduce erroneous execution under infeasible conditions.

Multilevel image thresholding is widely used for segmentation in applications ranging from medical imaging to remote sensing. Classical objective functions, such as Otsu's between-class variance and Kapur's entropy, are often optimized using metaheuristic algorithms, with performance evaluated via metrics like Structural Similarity Index (SSIM) and Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR). These evaluations implicitly assume that SSIM and PSNR provide unbiased measures of segmentation quality. In this study, we examine this assumption by analyzing the correlation between thresholding objective functions and quality metrics across all possible thresholds for images in the BSDS500 dataset. Results show that Otsu's criterion consistently exhibits high correlation with both SSIM and PSNR, while Kapur's entropy demonstrates weaker and more variable correlation. Otsu outperforms Kapur in correlation with PSNR for all images and with SSIM for over 91%. Our findings reveal an inherent metric-objective-function bias. This work highlights the need for more neutral evaluation frameworks and motivates extending the analysis to additional thresholding criteria and domains. Source code of this paper can be found at https://w3id.org/met-dp/icpr26-95

Reinforcement learning with evaluation metrics as rewards is widely used to enhance specific capabilities of language models. However, for tasks such as factually consistent summarisation, existing metrics remain underdeveloped, limiting their effectiveness as signals for shaping model behaviour.While individual factuality metrics are unreliable, their combination can more effectively capture diverse factual errors. We leverage this insight to introduce an automated training pipeline that improves factual consistency in summaries by aggregating scores from different weak metrics. Our approach avoids the need for complex reward shaping by mapping scores to preferences and filtering out cases with high disagreement between metrics. For each source document, we generate lexically similar summary pairs by varying decoding strategies, enabling the model to learn from factual differences caused by subtle lexical differences. This approach constructs a high-quality preference dataset using only source documents.Experiments demonstrate consistent factuality gains across models, ranging from early encoder-decoder architectures to modern large language models, with smaller models reaching comparable factuality to larger ones.

Choosing a Large Language Model (LLM) for a given task requires comparing many strong candidates, yet standard evaluation relies on costly annotations over fixed evaluation sets. To address this challenge, we develop SELECT-LLM, the first framework for active model selection of LLMs. SELECT-LLM aims to find a small set of queries whose annotations are most informative for identifying the best LLM for a given task. To this end, we introduce a query selection rule based on expected information gain, computed from pairwise similarities between candidate model outputs. Because this rule only uses generated model responses, SELECT-LLM can be applied across candidate models without assumptions about their architecture or access to model weights. This makes it suitable for both open-weight and black-box LLMs. We evaluate SELECT-LLM across 23 datasets, 156 evaluated models, diverse task families, and multiple text evaluation metrics. Across all experiments, SELECT-LLM improves over the strongest baseline in every setting, with annotation cost reductions up to 81.8% for best model selection and up to 84.78% for near-best model selection.

Reference-free image-to-text evaluators are now standard for scoring image-caption alignment, yet it is unclear whether they respect semantic invariances. We present an invariance probe on five popular evaluators (CLIPScore, PAC-S, UMIC, FLEUR, and a deterministic LLM judge) under semantics-preserving perturbations along three axes -- spatial (flips, context-preserving repositioning, light rotations), object (scale, category), and socio-linguistic framing (cultural/economic adjectives with neutral and length-matched controls). Across curated slices of three detection datasets and three caption evaluation suites, we find consistent non-semantic sensitivities, where benign spatial edits and simple phrasing changes shift scores by $\approx$6--9% on average, and for systems separated by just 0.7%, these shifts can cause ranking flips in up to $\sim$37% of cases, particularly under spatial changes. A small human study also supports this finding and confirms that annotators generally judge perturbed pairs as equally correct, so these shifts reflect metric behavior rather than semantic change. We further propose invariance-calibrated scoring, a post-hoc adjustment that roughly halves median absolute sensitivity while retaining correlation with learned caption evaluators.

Many novel unsupervised feature selection methods are proposed each year, yet their empirical evaluation is limited to supervised and unsupervised evaluation metrics computed on selected datasets, along with comparisons to existing methods. However, in the absence of an established evaluation baseline, it is difficult to determine the value added to the existing literature by each of these methods, and how effective their underlying approaches are. We propose using random feature selection as a baseline for evaluating the unsupervised feature selection methods. We empirically show that many of the state-of-the-art methods in unsupervised feature selection are outperformed by random feature selection in both performance and efficiency. Accordingly, we emphasize on the strict requirement of considering random feature selection as a baseline in the development process of novel unsupervised feature selection methods to ensure a consistent improvement over random feature selection.

Evaluation in scientific reconstruction is dominated by pointwise metrics - RMSE, MAE, per-event resolution - under the implicit assumption that lower error means better reconstruction. We show that this assumption fails structurally for inverse problems with multimodal posteriors. By the law of total variance, point estimators trained to minimize MSE or MAE produce a marginal spectrum strictly narrower than the truth whenever the posterior has nonzero width. The resulting bias is independent of architecture, training, and dataset size, and it compresses precisely the spectral features - tails, modes, shapes - that downstream scientific measurements rely on. We propose a three-part evaluation protocol where each step targets a failure mode the others miss: per-event distributional accuracy via CRPS, population-level marginal accuracy via a spectrum-fidelity diagnostic, and uncertainty trustworthiness via coverage-based calibration. On a synthetic benchmark with an analytic posterior and on a realistic many-to-one inverse problem from particle physics, model rankings reverse between pointwise and distributional metrics, and calibration further separates architectures indistinguishable under CRPS. The evaluation protocol, not the model, determines the scientific conclusion.

In high-stakes automated decision-making, access to predictive uncertainty is essential for enabling users -- human or downstream systems -- to accept or reject predictions based on application-specific cost trade-offs. Such uncertainty-augmented (UA) systems -- i.e., systems that output both predictions and uncertainty scores -- are currently being assessed in the literature in a variety of ways, using separate metrics to evaluate the predictions and the uncertainty scores, setting a cost function with a fixed rejection cost or integrating over a coverage-risk curve. We argue that these evaluation approaches are inadequate for assessing overall performance of the UA system for decision making under uncertainty and propose a novel family of metrics, ECUAS$_n$, formulated as proper scoring rules for the task of interest. The parameter $n$ controls the trade-off between the cost of incorrect predictions and imperfect uncertainties depending on the needs of the use-case. We demonstrate the advantages of the ECUAS$_n$ metrics both theoretically and empirically, through experiments on diverse classification and generation datasets, including a manually annotated subset of TriviaQA.

Validating interpretable surrogate models for ensemble learners requires measuring agreement between the ensemble's internal representation and its surrogate approximation, rather than mere association. Correlation-based approaches are scale-invariant and fail to detect systematic discrepancies in co-occurrence structure. We propose a statistical framework grounded in the agreement-association distinction, centered on the normalized Loss of Interpretability (nLoI). Rooted in the Cressie-Read power divergence family with lambda equal to 2, the nLoI admits a closed-form decomposition into within-node and between-node components, providing a unique diagnostic capability to identify precisely where and why reconstruction fails. The framework incorporates four complementary measures capturing distinct structural facets of approximation quality. A unified permutation testing procedure delivers valid inference for all measures within a single resampling pass. Theoretical properties, including boundedness and symmetry, are established for each metric. Monte Carlo simulations and empirical evaluations confirm exact Type I error control and demonstrate that these measures detect reconstruction fidelity gradients invisible to correlation-based alternatives. The framework is developed and illustrated in the context of Explainable Ensemble Trees (E2Tree), and empirical evaluation on three benchmark datasets illustrates the practical utility of the framework.

This paper presents a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization-based formulation framework for robot design optimization using kinematic structure-level evaluation metrics. In the proposed framework, classical computation is used to evaluate design-dependent metrics while the resulting combinatorial selection problem is formulated in a structure compatible with quantum annealing-based optimization. A robotic hand is adopted as a representative case study, as its performance is determined by both the individual kinematic characteristics of each finger and interaction terms. The proposed formulation incorporates individual design rewards, overlap workspace interactions, one-hot constraint, and structural dependency penalties into a unified quadratic model. A 27-variable robotic hand design problem is constructed, and simulated annealing is used as a classical baseline to verify the feasibility of the formulation. Quantum annealing is further performed to examine the applicability of the proposed formulation to annealing-based hardware execution. The results show that feasible design combinations satisfying both one-hot selection and pairwise constraints can be obtained, with the observed objective-value range becoming narrower as the number of reads increases. In addition, the formulation process is discussed for other robotic systems. The proposed framework provides a generalized approach for transforming kinematic structure-based robot design problems into combinatorial optimization problems.

Pixel-level slum mapping has long been constrained by limited cross-city generalisation, the absence of continuous density estimation, and weak global comparability. AlphaEarth Foundations (AEF), a globally consistent 64-dimensional annual surface embedding at 10 m, offers a new analysis-ready basis for lightweight slum monitoring, but its applicability to slum detection - an indirectly coupled task shaped by both built form and socio-economic processes - remains untested. We evaluate AEF on slum classification and sub-pixel density estimation across 12 cities and 69 city-year pairs (2017-2024), using GRAM pseudo-masks as supervisory labels. The evaluation spans four training strategies, two protocols (random split and 3x3 spatial block cross-validation), six auxiliary feature configurations, and five baseline models, complemented by representation-level analyses (PCA, SHAP) and full-AOI mapping. Five findings emerge. (1) Same-city cross-year training is optimal under both protocols (median spatial F1 = 0.616, R^2 = 0.466); temporal expansion outperforms cross-city transfer, indicating city-scale representational drift. (2) Regression R^2 is driven primarily by zero/non-zero boundary discrimination: positive-pixel R^2 is consistently negative across all cities, revealing limited capacity to model intra-pixel density gradients at 10 m. (3) PC36 is consistently top-ranked across tasks; classification saturates at k = 32 while regression remains unsaturated at k = 64. (4) POI features yield the largest density gain (Delta R^2 = +0.064). (5) For six cities meeting dual-task usability thresholds, full-AOI inference across 2017-2024 preserves slum cluster structure (mean SSIM = 0.926). The study delineates the capabilities and complementarity needs of foundation-model embeddings for slum monitoring.

We propose Dynamic Meta-Metrics (DMM), a framework for machine translation evaluation that learns source-sentence conditioned combinations of existing metrics. Rather than relying on a single static ensemble or language-specific weighting, DMM adapts the metric combination based on properties of the source segment. We study hard conditioning, which fits an interpretable combiner per cluster, and an exploratory soft-conditioned extension whose weights vary continuously with source-cluster responsibilities. We evaluate DMM on the WMT Metrics Shared Task data across multiple language pairs using pairwise agreement measures at the system and segment levels. Across settings, MLP-based combinations outperform linear and Gaussian process-based ensembles, and introducing soft conditioning yields gains over linear models.

The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) faces a critical challenge in construct validity, where fragmented benchmarks and ad hoc metrics frequently conflate method variance, such as prompt sensitivity, with true latent capabilities. Concurrently, emerging research suggests that LLM capabilities and outputs can be modeled as continuous geometric manifolds. In this Systematization of Knowledge (SoK), we bridge these paradigms by proposing a generalized Multi-Trait Multi-Method (MTMM) framework for LLM evaluation. We formalize and unify nine evaluation metrics, including Paraphrase Instability, Drift Score, Overton Width, and Pluralism Score, interpreting them not as isolated scalar values but as geometric measurements within a shared latent coordinate space. This spatial unification factorizes model behavior into three orthogonal latent dimensions: (1) Instability and Sensitivity, (2) Position and Alignment, and (3) Coverage and Expressiveness. By systematically separating task-irrelevant perturbations from true capability spans, the framework provides a theoretically grounded and domain-agnostic taxonomy for robust and empirically stable benchmark design.

As generative models achieve unprecedented visual quality, the gold standard for image evaluation remains traditional feature-distribution metrics (e.g., FID). However, these metrics are provably hindered by the closed-vocabulary bottleneck of outdated features and the assumptive bias of rigid parametric formulations. Recent alternatives exploit modern backbones to solve the feature bottleneck, yet continue to suffer from parametric limitations. To close this gap, we introduce APEX (Assumption-free Projection-based Embedding eXamination), a novel evaluation framework leveraging the Sliced Wasserstein Distance as a mathematically grounded, assumption-free similarity measure. APEX inherits effective scalability to high-dimensional spaces, as we prove with theoretical and empirical evidences. Moreover, APEX is embedding-agnostic and uses two open-vocabulary foundation models, CLIP and DINOv2, as feature extractors. Benchmarking APEX against established baselines reveals superior robustness to visual degradations. Additionally, we show that APEX metrics exhibit intra- and cross-dataset stability, ensuring highly stable evaluations on out-of-domain datasets.