Performance Metric

Text-to-music (TTM) systems are increasingly used to generate musical audio from natural-language descriptions. Robust evaluation is therefore essential, yet reliable performance comparison remains challenging. This difficulty stems from differences in system architecture, supported conditioning information, and access mode, as well as heterogeneous and fragmented metrics that cannot be applied uniformly across systems. To address these challenges, we introduce TTM-Bench, a framework that defines a common protocol for systematic, reproducible performance benchmarking of contemporary TTM systems. It evaluates performance along two dimensions: musical-content alignment, quantified by interpretable semantic, genre, and musical-descriptor agreement scores against a common musical specification and summarized by an aggregate score; and computational efficiency, characterized by generation latency and real-time factor, alongside resource use for local models and cost for hosted services. We demonstrate the framework through a preliminary comparative case study, illustrating the complementary evidence captured by these dimensions. The results show that higher musical-content alignment does not systematically coincide with lower computational demands, highlighting the importance of assessing TTM performance through distinct, interpretable measures rather than a reductive overall indicator.

On a delivery platform, personalized store ranking greatly influences what users find and order. Unlike digital-only domains, candidate stores are local and bound by real-time availability and delivery operations. One central modeling tension is between surfacing new stores for trial and preserving ranking quality for sessions with reorder intent. We present Universal Venue Ranker (UVR), a production system deployed at Wolt that pairs a bidirectional transformer encoder for sequential user modeling with a GBDT ranker integrating contextual, user, and store features. Trained across all stores and domains of a country while enforcing local delivery constraints at inference, UVR replaces four previously separate ranking models (three for restaurants, one for retail) with a single unified system. Label smoothing and trial-biased sample weighting steer the model toward new stores, lifting offline trial MRR by +12% to +30% over production while regressing reorder MRR in five of six countries. These regressions leave Global CVR, our core online metric, which blends trial and reorder sessions, statistically unchanged. We validate UVR in three consecutive A/B tests, the first two across Wolt's largest operating markets and the third spanning all operating countries and both domains. UVR V1 delivers +5.5% Merchant Trial Rate and +0.16% Global CVR over the previous production ranker; V2 adds a further +0.45% Merchant Trial Rate on top; and V3, our cross-domain unification of the restaurant and retail rankers, adds a further +1.31% Retail Merchant Trial Rate, together accounting for substantial incremental gross order value and a materially simplified serving stack.

This paper presents a systematic examination and experimental comparison of the prominent Federated Learning (FL) frameworks FedML, Flower, Substra, and OpenFL. The frameworks are evaluated experimentally by implementing Federated Learning over a varying number of clients, emphasizing a thorough analysis of scalability and key performance metrics. The study assesses the impact of increasing client counts on total training time, loss and accuracy values, and CPU and RAM usage. Results indicate distinct performance characteristics among the frameworks, with Flower displaying an unusually high loss, FedML achieving a notably low accuracy range of 66% to 79%, and Substra demonstrating good resource efficiency, albeit with an exponential growth in total training time. Notably, OpenFL emerges as the most scalable platform, demonstrating consistent accuracy, loss, and training time across different client counts. OpenFL's stable CPU and RAM underscore its reliability in real-world scenarios. This comprehensive analysis provides valuable insights into the relative performance of FL frameworks, offering good understanding of their capabilities and providing guidance for their effective deployment across diverse user bases.

Agent evaluations can be numerically correct while measuring a different construct from the one implied by their labels. We present a retrospective measurement audit of selected Praxa AI implementation files, historical evaluation artifacts, and operational records. A 139-case offline routing report contains 112 passes and 27 failures despite zero gating failures, because known gaps are explicitly exempted from the gate. An identifier-free export represents 8,843 tool-attempt rows: 8,395 recorded durations and 448 missing values. Of the durations, 121 equal the signed 32-bit maximum and carry abandoned-client labels; inspected database code clamps elapsed lifecycle age. The pooled recorded 99th percentile is 2,147,483,647 ms, versus 38,118.31 ms among server-observed completed calls. This is a stratum contrast, not a treatment effect. In a documented single-trajectory compaction pilot, the reported follow-up input reduction is 94.39%, but the reduction across the trigger and follow-up calls together is 46.54%. We reproduce the descriptive calculations, verify 91 timing statistics through a separate weighted rational-arithmetic implementation, and execute 13 scoring-function and 12 analysis-verifier tests. Finite-completion bounds show how missing durations limit all-row timing statements without imputing values. The contribution is a source-linked case study and reusable verification package for separating gate policy, lifecycle timing, and request-level accounting from broader agent-performance claims. Historical provider runs and the full current pipeline were not independently reproduced; general capability superiority and population-level statistical significance are not established.

AI shopping assistants increasingly redirect consumer discovery, creating an urgent need for tools that support seller-side competitive decision-making. We present a multi-agent AI system that automates competitive visibility measurement and root cause diagnosis in LLM-mediated ecommerce. The system introduces Agentic Share-of-Search (ASoS) as the decision target, deploys query agents across leading AI platforms, and uses a ReAct-based diagnostic agent to recommend prioritized merchandising interventions. A 100-trial ablation study, presented as a feasibility evaluation of this prototype, shows the agent recovers the ablated signal in 39% of trials (95% CI: 30.0% - 48.8%, 5.5x over chance), rising to 63.9% among high-correlation ablations.

Organoids are three-dimensional tissue models whose morphology provides important insights into tumor development, disease progression, and drug testing. Extracting these morphological features relies heavily on manual segmentation, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Furthermore, performing quantitative statistical analysis typically requires custom coding skills and a mathematical background, presenting a major barrier for experimental biologists. To address these challenges, we introduce MorphoOrgaAgent, a multi-agent framework that achieves zero-shot organoid segmentation, automated data analysis, and report generation based on natural language input. The framework consists mainly of three core components: a TaskUnderstandingAgent that identifies requested measurements and visualization types; a hybrid segmentation module that combines Cellpose-derived geometric prompts with text prompts to guide SAM3 for zero-shot organoid instance segmentation; and a ReportAgent that computes quantitative metrics and compiles them alongside generated visualizations into a structured report. We further introduce MorphoOrgaVQA, a benchmark designed for quantitative evaluation of agent systems in organoid morphology analysis. Experimental results demonstrate that MorphoOrgaAgent handles both explicit and descriptive user requests, produces measurements closely matching ground truth, and generates complete analysis reports without requiring manual programming. The complete source code and MorphoOrgaVQA benchmark are publicly available at https://github.com/peng-lab/MorphoOrgaAgent.

Parametric computer-aided design (CAD) modeling is difficult to evaluate with a single metric. Existing CAD benchmarks often emphasize synthetic or CAD-native settings, limited input modalities, or executability and IoUs alone. We introduce RealCADBench, a benchmark for intent-to-program CAD modeling from real industrial design intents. It contains 12,632 tasks from 19 factory-automation categories and spans text descriptions, 2D engineering drawings, real product pictures, and rendered images for both Part and Assembly modeling. We report results on a 1,770-task evaluation slice: 1,745 Part tasks across four input regimes and RCB-Assm25, a 25-task assembly study used in every reported assembly comparison. Each method generates FreeCAD API Python, which a shared runtime executes to export the 3D model. We evaluate the exported model using executability, Solid IoU, Surface IoU, and a rubric-based visual-semantic identity Judge. Among the nine standalone frontier large models evaluated, no model leads all four metrics. Across six frontier-scale large models, executability ranges from 0.565 to 0.812, Solid IoU from 0.2841 to 0.5379, and Surface IoU from 0.112 to 0.217 across the four Part regimes. The highest regime-balanced composite comes from a different model than the leaders on the four component metrics. On RCB-Assm25, Codex with GPT-5.5 improves executability and both IoU metrics over standalone GPT-5.5, but lowers the Judge score by 6.98 percentage points, leaving GPT-5.5 as the Judge leader. We also observe recurring failure modes, most notably missing fine structures, loss of part identity, and incorrect assembly placement. These results show that execution alone is insufficient to characterize realistic CAD modeling and that frontier models and agents differ substantially across executability, IoUs, and visual-semantic identity.

Background: Population level assessments of predictive artificial intelligence (AI) can conceal performance disparities across subgroups. Fairness evaluations commonly rely on performance analyses across subgroups. However, some performance metrics are non-collapsible, meaning that the overall population performance value does not equal the weighted average of subgroup specific values. Objective: To examine the collapsibility properties of commonly reported performance metrics in predictive AI, with a focus on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, also known as c-statistic). Methods: We investigate the collapsibility of 15 performance metrics, either by expressing each metric as a linear combination of its stratum specific values or, where non-collapsible, by providing a counterexample inspired by Simpson's paradox as a formal disproof. Results: Five performance metrics (AUC, calibration intercept, calibration slope, expected calibration error, and Nagelkerke R^2) are shown to be non-collapsible, and ten (O:E ratio, logloss, Brier score, accuracy, F1-score, true positive rate, true negative rate, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and net benefit) are shown to be collapsible. The AUC is shown to be non-collapsible because it decomposes into within- and cross-group AUC terms when subpopulations coexist, such that its overall value may fall outside the range of subgroup specific AUCs. Conclusions: Non-collapsibility of performance metrics has important consequences for reporting, model appraisal, and fairness evaluation. It can generate spurious differences between subgroup and overall performance, which may mislead fairness evaluations. Explicitly acknowledging and reporting the collapsibility properties of performance metrics improves both the interpretability and transparency of fairness assessments.

Long-form research reports generated by large language models drift, contradict themselves, and lose provenance: the same metric appears with different values, and rumor is quoted as confidently as an audited filing. We present a two-tier agentic system that separates a maintained, point-in-time knowledge library from report writing. A deterministic "librarian" ingests timestamped sources into a trust-tiered ontology, layering evidence cards, an authoritative metric ledger, and a claim graph into an always-current source of truth, not per-query RAG over raw chunks. A portable multi-agent "writer" runtime then composes a contradiction-free, evidence-grounded report at any knowledge cutoff T, reading only evidence with as_of <= T (no look-ahead); red-team verdicts flow back into the librarian. We evaluate on a self-collected, public corpus of 6,130 sources yielding 555,926 evidence cards (SEC EDGAR filings across 295 issuers and 11 sectors, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics releases, and Wikipedia). From the one library we compose four point-in-time reports on distinct theses and run eight reproducible experiments, whose headline metrics come from a deterministic quality-control gate, itself validated by defect-injection meta-evaluation at recall 1.0 and precision 1.0. A shared metric ledger removes 6,845 cross-section contradictions to zero. Tier-first selection is correct on 22/22 gold cases where a popularity-first baseline scores only 9/22; trust tiering leaks zero media-sourced numbers, and no government statistic displaces a company's own filing. A red-team refutation propagates back and self-corrects a later run with zero manual edits. Replay exhibits zero look-ahead violations across seven cutoffs while the library grows from 235,373 to 555,312 cards. Difficulty-tiered model routing exceeds the all-Opus quality ceiling while running 3.7x faster than serial.

This article presents with DYSANOS the first generative market model for smooth SANOS option surfaces for all strikes and expiries which are free of static arbitrage. Our model is designed to generate entire paths of daily spot and option prices for years in the future. We present a robust and useful if somewhat simplistic baseline hidden state generative model in the form of an AR(1) model. We discuss model setup, data pipeline, and training and investigate numerical resence of dynamic arbitrage. We illustrate model performance on Option Metrics' IvyDB S&P Index data from 2020 to~2025 and compare it to a pure implied-vol PCA model.

Satellite object detection is challenged by small targets and wide-format scenes that lose detail under standard square-input resizing. We introduce SkySeaLand, a public dataset of 1,307 high-resolution satellite images and 19,101 verified bounding boxes across airplane, boat, car, and ship classes in terrestrial and maritime scenes. Native COCO and YOLO annotations are provided. The collection is dominated by large source images and wide scene geometry: 84.5 percent exceed 3,836 pixels on the longest side and 73.1 percent are near a 3:1 aspect ratio. We evaluate twelve detectors from the YOLO, RT-DETR, DETR, and Faster R-CNN families using a common split and COCO metrics. The tested YOLO and RT-DETR variants obtain 84.4--88.2 mAP50, with no consistent accuracy gain from larger parameter counts under the reported model-specific recipes. We also report SkyDet, a 1.22 M parameter anchor-free baseline that obtains 60.5 mAP50 and 24.32 mAP50-95 in a 4.90 MB footprint, with 13.74 ms latency (72.8 FPS) on a Tesla T4. SkySeaLand provides a compact benchmark for mixed land--maritime transportation detection, while SkyDet establishes a documented low-footprint reference rather than a state-of-the-art accuracy claim.

We study score learning for reflected diffusion on bounded domains. Reflection keeps trajectories feasible but does not ensure that the learned score satisfies the boundary behavior implied by the forward process. With implicit score matching, integration by parts leaves a boundary term, and we show that it depends on one scalar at each boundary point: the diffusion- weighted normal component of the score, or conormal trace. The no-flux condition fixes this value while leaving the re- maining boundary components unrestricted; under anisotropic diffusion it generally differs from the ordinary normal score component. On hyperrectangles, our parametrization enforces the required trace without additional trainable parameters or a stochastic boundary estimator and, under regularity assump- tions, can represent the true score, whereas fixing an incorrect value creates an error that more data cannot remove. We ex- tend the construction to simplices and polygonal domains and identify reflection masking: hard reflection can keep samples feasible even when the learned trace is wrong, so post-reflection metrics may hide the error. Experiments show the clearest separation with less frequent reflection, anisotropic diffusion, and mass near intersections of constraints; under full reflection, final sample placement improves inconsistently, illustrating how hard repair can mask boundary-score errors and decouple score accuracy from downstream generation quality.

Organizations increasingly define operational metrics in structured, machine-readable formats to monitor systems, processes, and compliance. These metric definitions implicitly encode domain knowledge, such as referencing concepts, properties, and relationships, that often extends what is captured in formal ontologies. Yet the connection between operational metric catalogues and ontological knowledge remains manual, ad-hoc, and labor-intensive. We present COntExt, a framework for context-aware ontology extension that takes structured metric definitions as input and suggests how referenced concepts and properties should be integrated into an existing ontology, utilizing the context of these metrics. The framework defines the extension problem as three sub-tasks: parent class prediction, relation type prediction, and data property assignment. Across four cybersecurity ontologies, we evaluate different algorithms for each task. Our results show that metric-derived context improves the suggestions over ontology-context baselines for relation type prediction and data property assignment. Our work demonstrates that operational metric catalogues are a practical and underexploited source for ontology extension. This work enables organizations to maintain their ontologies at a significantly lower cost than manual engineering.

Metasignal is an open-source Python package for signal detection theory (SDT) and metacognitive measurement. It implements the 17 metacognitive measures evaluated by Rahnev (2025), together with the reference variables d' (perceptual sensitivity), response criterion c (response bias), and mean confidence. The 17 measures comprise three meta-d' family estimates, meta-d', M-ratio, and M-difference; four nonparametric Type-2 measures, the Type-2 area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC2), Gamma, Phi, and delta confidence, together with their eight SDT-normalized ratio and difference forms; and two model-based measures, meta-noise and meta-uncertainty. A single function computes the complete set from trial-level stimulus, response, and confidence arrays. metasignal currently supports binary (two-alternative) discrimination tasks, in which each trial's stimulus and response are coded with exactly two categories. The package also provides a command-line interface, group summaries, bootstrap confidence intervals, permutation tests, optional hierarchical Bayesian models, and information-theoretic measures. metasignal unifies these measures in a single platform to encourage broader metacognition research and adoption in decision-making studies.

Objective evaluation of expressive MIDI piano performances typically relies on attribute statistics such as timing, velocity, and duration of individual notes. However, these methods often disregard dependencies between notes, which poses a potential limitation in assessing the similarity between two sets of performances. In generative applications, the wide variety of expressive attributes makes it difficult to aggregate them into a single scalar metric for model selection. In this work, we reexamine attribute-scoped metrics and explore the perceptual properties of contextual embeddings from self-supervised symbolic music models, Aria and CLaMP3. Results from our listening study indicate that these models can be used as perceptual proxies, showing agreement with per-sample human ratings on par with traditional metrics. To measure conditional distributional similarity, we adapt Kernel Audio Distance to the symbolic music domain. Unlike Pearson correlation and reconstruction error, kernel-based methods on contextual embeddings do not require note alignment and are sensitive to contextual perturbations. To facilitate reproducibility, we release Pereval, an open-source library that integrates performance evaluation utilities, including both attribute-scoped and deep feature metrics.

Mixed continuous--categorical data pose a representation problem for continuous generative models. Flow Matching and Gaussian diffusion operate in Euclidean spaces, whereas categorical laws lie on probability simplices and may be highly imbalanced. We study a logit-coordinate framework that encodes categorical variables as smoothed natural parameters and combines them with transformed numerical variables. This yields common formulations of Logit Flow Matching and Logit Diffusion. We introduce a mixed-distribution discrepancy separating categorical marginal error from conditional continuous Wasserstein error, and derive stability bounds and imbalance-aware nonparametric rates linking vector-field or drift error to decoded mixed-distribution error. Controlled simulations show that scaled-logit coordinates improve or match one-hot coordinates, especially under severe rare-cell imbalance. Across four real-data benchmarks and ten splits per dataset, Logit FM improves the primary distributional metrics on three datasets and is comparable on Churn2; Block-Conditional Logit FM consistently improves the flat model; and Logit Diffusion generally improves over or matches One-Hot Diffusion.

Counterfactual explanations are a prominent approach in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), providing actionable guidance on what input changes would alter a model's prediction to a desired outcome. While early methods primarily focused on minimal feature changes, recent work incorporates additional properties such as sparsity, actionability and plausibility. Despite this progress, fair and systematic evaluation remains challenging. Existing studies often rely on different data splits, predictive models, and evaluation metrics, which limits objective comparison across methods. To fill this gap, we introduce CEL (Counterfactual Explanations Library), a unified library and benchmark for counterfactual explanations designed to support consistent implementation and evaluation. CEL includes 18 datasets of varying size and complexity and provides implementations or reimplementations of 14 widely used counterfactual methods. Using this standardized setup, we conduct a comprehensive quantitative comparison across a variety of methods on datasets that differ in size, number, and types of attributes. The evaluation protocol incorporates multiple complementary metrics capturing validity, coverage, sparsity, proximity, and distributional plausibility, including density- and outlier-based measures to assess the realism of generated counterfactuals. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive benchmark that systematically evaluates recent counterfactual explanation methods within a unified and reproducible framework. While prior libraries and benchmarking efforts exist in the literature, many are outdated, limited in scope, or lack consistent evaluation protocols. The proposed benchmark aims to improve reproducibility, enable fair comparison, and establish a workbench for the development of future counterfactual explanation methods.

Scalar metrics are often used to evaluate clusterings against known classes, but they can obscure a fundamental trade-off: clusterings should be informative about class labels while avoiding unnecessary fragmentation. Here we describe normalized scores of cluster homogeneity and parsimony that quantify this trade-off. These scores build on the information bottleneck principle, modified to not reward lossy compression. We show by example and mathematical proof that our definitions of these scores have the intuitive property of varying monotonically under cluster refinement in contrast to related proposals. Extending the information-theoretic framework beyond Shannon entropies, we furthermore derive set-matching and pair-based counterparts of the homogeneity and parsimony scores. These unify commonly used evaluation criteria and show that, in the pair-based setting, the homogeneity-parsimony trade-off recovers the receiver operating characteristic of binary classifiers. We demonstrate the framework's utility for feature selection and algorithm comparison, illustrating how considering scores jointly can clarify clustering operating points and identify Pareto-optimal solutions.

LLM agent benchmarks measure task completion, reliability, and inference cost, but not the persistent data an agent run leaves on disk, including logs, context snapshots, checkpoints, and debug traces. We introduce AgentFootprint, a cross-framework benchmark of post-run agent storage footprint. Its serialization-aware metric suite measures total retention, channel composition, duplication, growth, compressibility, and conversation-history reconstructability. It addresses a measurement trap: naive byte-level measurement understates duplication by an order of magnitude because database paging and JSON escaping obscure repeated content. A fixed-trace control separates agent-generated logical volume from persistence-layer amplification: replaying the same trajectory through seven persisting frameworks yields a 6.7x spread. Under identical models, tools, and tasks, configurations with 100% accuracy differ by 15.7x in retained bytes, although their defaults support different recovery and audit capabilities. Three full-history configurations grow superlinearly on a repeated-observation stress task. Exported trajectories from 108 instance-normalized SWE-bench Verified submissions span three orders of magnitude per instance, with no detectable correlation with resolve rate. A content-addressed store reduces retention by 4.8x-32.7x while preserving every reconstructability score. These results establish persistent storage as a resource metric to report jointly with accuracy and reconstructability.

At Amazon Prime Video, we face the critical operational challenge of managing code deployments during live events and rapid feature releases without causing service outages. Current change control approaches use blanket deployment freezes that block all changes regardless of risk, creating significant developer toil. While prior research has explored risky change predictors, these rely on developer-specific metadata or extensive historical data, raising privacy concerns and limiting applicability to new projects. We introduce a framework centered on diff-aware features, characteristics derived directly from code modifications. Our key contribution is the systematic identification of which quantitative metrics (code-level and change-level metrics) and qualitative indicators (coding style violations, change type classification) are necessary for risk prediction. We employ LLMs as multi-language feature extractors, demonstrating their effectiveness for code analysis beyond generation tasks and eliminating the need for language-specific tooling. We evaluated our framework on two datasets: Prime Video's production environment and the public ApacheJIT dataset. Our best-performing model achieves an average recall of 0.83 and F1 score of 0.81 across both datasets for detecting risky code changes. Notably, ablation analysis reveals that change-level volume metrics (e.g., lines added/deleted) are noisy predictors, while structural code complexity provides a substantially stronger risk signal. These results demonstrate that thoughtful feature curation enables effective change risk assessment across different programming languages and organizational contexts while avoiding privacy concerns.

The increasing energy demand of software systems is raising concerns about their environmental impact and associated costs. Reasoning on energy usage early in the development flow has the potential to significantly reduce the overall energy usage of a software system, as it allows developers to make informed design and refactoring decisions before inefficiencies propagate. However, assessing energy usage without repeated profiling and direct measurement is difficult, which limits early reasoning in practice. This study investigates the limits of method-level energy prediction in Java, examining whether static source code metrics complemented with method-level execution time can estimate the energy consumption of Java methods. We profile 2,786 Java methods to extract 33 static features and measure execution time and energy, then train and compare eleven regression models. Our findings show that static source code metrics alone yield poor predictive performance, with average R2 values close to zero. Incorporating execution time as a lightweight dynamic input significantly improves accuracy, raising R2 to as high as 0.46. Execution time, internal method calls, and cyclomatic complexity consistently emerge as the strongest predictors of energy consumption.

Background: Growing individual case safety report (ICSR) volumes have intensified demand for scalable automated causality assessment. Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise, yet performance on clinically demanding tasks remains suboptimal and inference-time hyperparameter optimization has not been investigated. Objective: To develop a Gaussian Process (GP)-compatible optimization objective and investigate whether temperature optimization improves LLM-expert agreement on Naranjo causality assessment of FAERS ICSRs. Methods: Expert causality assessments were performed on 723 stratified FAERS cases. OpenAI's GPT-5.2 was evaluated using chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. Four composite metrics were developed: Weighted Cosine Similarity (WCS), Information-Weighted Agreement Score (IWAS), Entropy-Weighted Agreement and Cosine Similarity Score (EWACS), and Consensus-Weighted Cosine Similarity (CWCS) and Bayesian optimization using a GP surrogate with Probability of Improvement (PoI) acquisition was applied across temperature [0, 2]. Results: GPT-5.2 outperformed prior biomedical LLMs at baseline (T = 0), achieving 74.1% agreement on question 5 and 65.4% on question 10 of Naranjo algorithm. Entropy analysis identified these as the sole informative optimization targets. Temperature showed no systematic population-level effect (\b{eta} = 0.002, p = 0.959). EWACS-guided Bayesian optimization improved causality classification agreement from 45.0% to 72.0% (+27 pp), with the largest gain in Doubtful cases (+42.9 pp). Conclusion: EWACS was identified as the optimal GP-compatible metric. The absence of a universal temperature optimum indicates LLM performance is driven primarily by ICSR content, yet case-specific temperature selection produced meaningful improvements, supporting temperature optimization for LLM-assisted pharmacovigilance.

Low-voltage load forecasting is an important component in current and future energy systems with a high degree of electrification and decentralized generation. However, current forecasting methods require significant manual effort, often lack uncertainty estimation and proper peak prediction, and they are often not adequately evaluated in terms of grid requirements. In the present study, we provide an extensive evaluation of short-term net load forecasts of 200 real-world low-voltage feeders with a focus on the rapidly evolving time series foundation models. Our study compares Chronos-Bolt, Chronos-2 and TabPFN-TS to six baseline models and demonstrates superior performance, in particular for Chronos-2. An ablation study, in which weather covariates are omitted, shows that time series foundation models adapt to increased uncertainty, despite the importance of weather information. A novel application-oriented metric links the model's forecasting capabilities in peak prediction to the trade-off in grid asset planning and operation between cost reduction and minimizing the risk of failure.

LLM-integrated applications blend natural language prompts with program code, and much of their runtime behavior originates in the prompt layer rather than in the code itself. Existing complexity metrics, however, operate solely at the code level and therefore overlook this behavioral logic entirely. We present HECATE, the first tool designed to assess complexity in both the prompt and code layers of such applications. Central to HECATE is Prompt-as-Specification, a Hoare-logic-inspired formalism that interprets every prompt as a specification of intended behavior. Grounded in 25 complexity dimensions identified across published taxonomies, the tool generates 52 candidate metrics. We assess each metric against 118 components collected from 18 open-source repositories, relying on maintenance activity derived from version history as an empirical proxy for complexity, and discard any metric that loses significance once code size is accounted for. Only ten metrics withstand this test. Seven belong to our newly introduced set; rather than measuring sheer volume, each tallies structurally distinct elements, such as LLM call sites, memory attributes, and prompt templates, an attribute we call structural breadth. Of the three surviving conventional metrics, RFC exhibits a similar breadth-oriented character, while Halstead N and V survive only as a residual effect of size; our top-performing metrics exceed all three. Crucially, the prompt-layer metrics retain significance even when the strongest code-level metric is added as a covariate, establishing prompt complexity as a dimension in its own right. A final validation on 20 components spanning six held-out repositories shows that the two best-performing metrics continue to predict maintenance effort, supporting their generalizability beyond the training set.

As exponential compute scaling continues, will the capabilities of frontier AI models outstrip what is accessible to developers on a small fixed budget? Or will capabilities converge, with "meek models inheriting the earth"? Building on Gundlach et al. (2025b), we show that the answer depends on how we value and measure AI capabilities. We discuss conventional performance measures and show that, while validation loss shows a shrinking gap, on other metrics frontier models grow their lead forever. Classifying performance metrics by their functional forms in relation to training (and inference) compute, we provide tight mathematical conditions for determining which metrics favor meek models, and show that bounded performance metrics always do. But careful interpretation of performance metrics is essential: we show that many common bounded metrics have closely-related counterpart metrics that are unbounded (and vice versa). Determining the apt metric in a domain is a prerequisite for policy, since bounded and unbounded metrics may suggest opposing policy responses. If a particular capability -- like software engineering, synthetic biology, or rhetorical persuasiveness -- is unbounded when measured in the terms we care about, frontier-level capability will likely be concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy actors. Conversely, if that capability is instead bounded, frontier-level capabilities proliferate through meek models into the hands of the many.

Improvements in the technical performance of human--robot interaction (HRI) systems do not automatically translate into differences that human users can detect during live interaction. This paper investigates whether a 15 percentage point gain in end-to-end task success (from 75% in a multimodal baseline system to 90% in an improved configuration identified through a prior ablation study) is sufficient to produce consistent and measurable differences in user perception. The baseline system combines Whisper for speech recognition, Florence-2 for open-vocabulary object detection, LLaMA 3.1 for action extraction, and an interval Type-2 fuzzy logic controller for motion execution. The improved configuration replaces the perception and language modules with Grounding DINO + SAM and Qwen 3.5 9B, respectively, while retaining the same controller. A within-subject user study with 24 participants compared both systems on the same tabletop object-grasping task. After interacting with each configuration, participants rated perceived speed, reliability, and overall competence and fluency on a 7-point Likert scale. Results show that 17 out of 24 participants (70.83%) preferred the improved system (exact binomial test, p = 0.043, h = 0.43), and all three perceptual constructs were rated significantly higher for the improved configuration after Holm correction, with large to very large effect sizes (p < 0.001). These findings confirm that the identified technical improvements are perceptible to users in direct interaction and underscore the importance of complementing benchmark evaluation with user-centred evidence when assessing robotic manipulation pipelines.

Accuracy degradation is the standard metric for Catastrophic Forgetting (CF), however, it records only whether forgetting occurred or not. It saturates at the extremes and collapses discretely at task boundaries, hiding the internal structure of what is being forgotten. We introduce six softmax-derived metrics spanning true-label rank (TLR), predictive confidence, and distributional divergence that characterize forgetting continuously, each normalized to [0, 1] with no modification to training. On CIFAR-100, these metrics carry information where accuracy does not: at 0% accuracy, the Confusion Margin spans an IQR of [0.32, 0.50] across classes that accuracy treats identically. We demonstrate that this richer signal is actionable in mitigating catastrophic forgetting. Per-sample metric scores used as loss weights reduce forgetting by 1.3 percentage points over uniform experience replay (ER) on CIFAR-100. Furthermore, the slope of a metric over a small window provides a stable sampling criterion: at a small-window size (e.g. 3 epochs), accuracy-trend degrades to 34.79% (std. = 2.32) while log-TLR achieves 41.07% (std. = 0.57). This gap is structural since reliable small-window trend estimation requires a continuous signal. On TinyImageNet, log-TLR trend sampling reduces forgetting by 7.7 percentage points over the ER baseline.

A set of exposure scores calculated in 2023 has become a central empirical input to the future of work debate. Produced by Eloundou et al. (2023) and referred to here as the GPTs are GPTs scores, they define exposure as the share of occupational tasks a large language model can assist with. This work is a genuine methodological contribution, but as the scores travel from the time and place they were produced, the limitations the authors named do not always travel with them. Two gaps have widened as a result. The first is structural, between what static exposure scores measure and what policy questions actually require. Taking the diffusion of these scores as a case study, we show how their temporal, geographic, and ontological limitations compound in policy-facing analyses, and we survey five families of research responding to these limits: dynamic and benchmark-based measures, ensemble methods, task-framework extensions, worker-centered metrics, and adoption and usage data. The second gap is the one we argue needs more attention: the coordination between researchers and policymakers. The policy-relevant work which ask who is harmed, who benefits, how, and when, continues to reference the static GPTs are GPTs scores without engagement with the methodological updates that would let these questions be answered more reliably. We then ask what additional steps towards navigating uncertainty remain: ex-post frameworks and the deliberate, political work of reimagining what futures are worthy of building towards are. Closing the research-policy gap is a shared task: policymakers must widen their evidence base, engage workers as epistemic partners, and shift from prediction to preparedness; researchers must build data infrastructure, adopt participatory methods, and write with policymakers in mind. Better measurement matters, but it will not close the second gap alone.

Software engineering has long inferred where a system's knowledge resides from who authored its code. The truck factor, the Degree-of-Authorship metric, and the degree-of-knowledge model all rest on one inference -- that authoring a region of code is evidence of understanding it -- and for most of software's history it was a workable proxy, because code entered a repository only when a human wrote it, which forced at least transient understanding. This paper argues that AI code generation severs that inference at its root, and that the consequence is not the degradation of the authorship-based metrics but their invalidation as a class. When an agent generates a module and a human merges it, the version-control record still attributes authorship, but the attribution no longer licenses any conclusion about comprehension: the same footprint is now compatible with full, partial, or no understanding. The metric still returns a number; the number measures a substrate that has come uncoupled from the quantity it was used to estimate. The collapse is corroborated by the field's own measurement failures, and the methodological corollary is load-bearing: the instrument the comprehension-debt era needs cannot be built by refining the knowledge-concentration metrics, because no function of an authorship footprint recovers an inference the footprint no longer supports. The replacement must be grounded in evidence of comprehension rather than authorship. I state a falsifiable prediction that discriminates the two -- that systems with a healthy authorship-derived truck factor but low comprehension-measured retention will suffer incident-resolution failures the authorship metric does not predict -- and argue that building the comprehension-grounded instrument at the scale of a system and a team is the field's open measurement problem, left open here.

Key Performance Measurement (KPM) forecasting is essential for proactive network management of 5G and next-generation telecom networks. However, existing machine learning (ML) approaches face significant limitations in scalability and explainability, restricting their effectiveness in real-world deployments. We propose TelcoAgent, a foundation model-based framework that enables accurate, scalable, and explainable forecasting of multiple KPMs across diverse network cells without the need for site-specific training. Specifically, the framework comprises three key components: (i) an automated three-agent pipeline that constructs a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) knowledge graph directly from specification documents, (ii) a scalable, time-series foundation model (TSFM)-based prediction pipeline to deliver accurate, zero-shot forecasting, and finally (iii) a reasoning and explanation pipeline that provides actionable, domain-grounded diagnostics. Evaluated using a 3-month, real-world, city-scale 5G KPM dataset from a U.S.-based network operator, TelcoAgent demonstrates high forecasting accuracy for all 7 considered KPMs per cell across 200 cells, while delivering explainable insights and actionable instructions to address network degradations.

Automatic metrics are the default for evaluating LLM-generated text, yet a metric is quietly asked to do two jobs: tell genuine content alignment from surface coincidence (validity), and tell a better system from a worse one (discriminative power). On open-ended, opinion-driven question answering, the two are in tension. We introduce RECOM (Reddit Evaluation for Correspondence of Models), a contamination-free evaluation dataset of 15,000 r/AskReddit questions (September 2025), each paired with its authentic community replies, which postdate every evaluated model's training cutoff. Scoring five open-source LLMs (7--10B) against every reply each metric paired with a random-derangement noise floor we find that no metric does both jobs well. Cosine similarity separates real from random answers (Cohen's $d \approx 2$) but cannot rank the five models ($|d| < 0.1$); BERTScore precision appears to rank the models (raw $|d|$ up to 0.63), but once response length is controlled this collapses to $|d| = 0.09$ and its validity is weak ($d \approx 0.8$, versus cosine's $\approx 2$). Because every metric scores the same outputs, this validity--discrimination tradeoff is a property of the metrics, not the models, and we argue it stems from representation design. Three independent LLM judges reproduce the validity gap and likewise separate the five models only weakly. We recommend reporting metrics on both axes, with an explicit random-baseline floor. RECOM is publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/recom-D4B0

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.

Vision-language-action (VLA) models generate chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning alongside driving trajectories, but existing benchmarks evaluate only trajectory quality and do not assess whether the CoT is relevant, consistent, or causally connected to the driving action. We introduce VLADriveBench, a framework that combines observational metrics (mentioning, hallucination, contradiction, action alignment) with a CoT intervention protocol to provide complementary views of the CoT-action relationship. Applying VLADriveBench to three models across two architectures, we find that the two analyses can diverge sharply: ORION scores highest on observational alignment yet its CoT is epiphenomenal, while Alpamayo v1.5 scores lower yet its CoT is strongly causal, with visual salience gating the extent of CoT influence.

This paper proposes an empirical methodology to study software aging in GPU-based LLM serving systems. Traditional aging studies focus on CPU-centric software with relatively regular workloads; LLM serving is different, spanning a Python host and a CUDA device, handling requests whose cost varies by orders of magnitude, and relying on rapidly evolving software stacks. We run a 216-hour campaign across six co-located deployments under identical stress conditions, monitor host, device, and client metrics in parallel, and apply a statistical pipeline that accounts for autocorrelation and multiple testing. Our results reveal statistically significant memory aging in all deployments, with leak rates strongly dependent on the serving runtime and deployment configuration. Beyond these findings, we provide a reproducible framework that opens a research direction at the intersection of the software aging and rejuvenation and LLM serving communities.

Aligning text-to-image flow matching models with human preferences via direct reward backpropagation is sample-efficient but hampered by two well-known pathologies: activations cannot be stored across the full sampling trajectory at modern model scale, and chained Jacobian products across steps inflate the reward gradient as it travels back to early indices. Connector-based methods, such as LeapAlign, address these issues by replacing the full backward trajectory with a short pinned path, highlighting a useful decoupling between sampling and optimization. However, the quality of the resulting gradient depends on how accurately this short path approximates the full rollout, especially over long intervals. We propose FlowBP, a unified surrogate-trajectory framework that treats the backward trajectory itself as the design object. FlowBP keeps a no-gradient cached rollout for sampling, then builds a lightweight backward surrogate from cached and selectively re-forwarded velocities. This view separates four choices: the reward-model input, active set, integration weights, and bridge coupling, and recovers prior direct-gradient methods as particular settings. Within this framework, we instantiate three variants: FlowBP-Sparse uses sparse Euler reconstruction, FlowBP-Bridge adds controlled bridge coupling, and FlowBP-Lagrange raises the order of leap quadrature. All three bound memory by the active-set size and limit gradient chaining to at most one Jacobian factor. Across SD3.5-M, FLUX.1-dev, and FLUX.2-Klein-base on preference, quality, and compositional metrics, the three variants improve over direct-gradient baselines on most metrics.

Post-training a frontier model is normally weeks of human work: proposing data and recipe changes, launching runs, reading evals, deciding what to keep. We report an autonomous system that runs this loop with no human in the loop, post-training a 30B Nemotron across four rounds over multiple weeks. The autonomously produced model reaches a held-out score of 0.86 against the top human submission's 0.87 on the public NVIDIA Nemotron-Reasoning Challenge leaderboard, placing 8th of ~4000 at the time of writing. More striking than the number: the loop detected that its own dev metric had stopped tracking external performance on the weakest domain -- candidates drove dev to record highs without moving the external target -- and revised its own search policy, no longer maximizing dev but seeking interventions that lowered the now-misleading proxy while improving the external target. We treat this as direct, auditable evidence that a scaled autonomous loop can produce discovery, not only optimization: it detected that its measurement frame had become misleading and changed what counted as evidence. We take the operational view that any system worth the "recursive self-improvement" label must eventually perform end-to-end post-training of a frontier-class model; this is one datapoint of that bar being cleared. We do not claim a "first autonomous match" of human researchers. The claim we make is narrower and auditable: to our knowledge, this is the first publicly reported autonomous post-training run at this scale, where prior public autonomous-ML-research demonstrations sit at GPT-2-class (~124M) budgets. The same system also post-trains the 120B and 550B Nemotron; with no public human baseline there, this shows only that the loop closes at that scale, not that its output is competitive -- infrastructure evidence, with the effectiveness claim deferred until a comparable human anchor exists.

Automated Planning is a subfield of Artificial Intelligence (AI) where the main objective is generating a sequence of actions, known as a plan, that helps us reach a goal state from an initial state. A planning problem is defined by a set of objects, an initial state and a desired goal state. The objective is to compute a plan that'll lead us from the inital state to the goal state. Programs that generate plans are called planners. In this paper, we did a complementary study to the state-of-the-art LLM called PlanGPT which was released last year. We redid some experiments to verify whether planning with LLMs is \textbf{pertinent} and \textbf{worthwhile}. We also check whether the results obtained in the official PlanGPT paper for plan coverage were correct, and we also performed a more comprehensive study on PlanGPT's performance: in our paper PlanGPT's performance was evaluated using two metrics: Plan Cost and Plan Generation Time. The results of planGPT were compared to those produced by a traditional planner for the same plans and same metrics. We discovered that PlanGPT is no better than a Greedy search strategy.

Cross-domain recommendation is a core problem in content-to-e-commerce platforms. Its objective is to leverage user interactions with content to infer potential purchasing intent on the e-commerce side, thereby enhancing conversion rates and commercial value. However, in real industrial scenarios, cross-domain recommendation faces multiple challenges: significant semantic gaps exist between different domains, and user cross-domain behavior sequences are often massive in scale and rich in noise. Although large language models (LLMs) possess powerful semantic understanding and reasoning capabilities, their millisecond-level inference latency makes direct application in online recommendation systems difficult. To address these issues, this paper introduces AIR (Atomic Intent Reasoning), an LLM-driven cross-domain recommendation framework designed for industrial-grade deployment. By migrating LLM inference to the offline phase and dynamically constructing user intent representations through efficient retrieval and composition during online operations, it achieves approximately 400* inference acceleration while maintaining semantic consistency. Experimental results across multiple public datasets demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in cross-domain recommendation tasks. Furthermore, large-scale online A/B testing conducted in Kuaishou E-commerce's real-world business scenarios shows that our approach delivers stable and significant improvements across multiple core business metrics, including a +3.446% increase in GMV, fully validating its effectiveness and practical value in industrial-scale recommendation systems.

Correlation matrices are fundamental summaries of functional brain networks, yet standard analyses often treat entries independently, ignoring the curved geometry of correlation space. Existing geometric methods frequently lack closed-form operations or depend on arbitrary region ordering, limiting scalability. We introduce a scalable geometric framework with two components: (i) the Off-log metric, a smooth transformation mapping correlation matrices to symmetric zero-diagonal matrices. This enables closed-form expressions for distances, Frechet means, and linear models, allowing standard statistical modeling without complex manifold optimization. (ii) Grassmannian subspace discrimination, which compares subjects via principal-angle distances between eigenvector subspaces, resolving inherent sign and basis ambiguities. Both components integrate into standard machine-learning workflows for inference, regression, and classification. Validated across two clinical cohorts (Parkinson's and psychosis) and three ageing fMRI datasets, the Off-log metric increased sensitivity in permutation tests and matched or exceeded Riemannian and Euclidean baselines in classification. Brain-age prediction performance was comparable, with Riemannian metrics excelling in two of three cohorts. The Grassmannian method consistently outperformed Euclidean baselines, highlighting disease-relevant networks. Overall, geometry-aware representations improve sensitivity and predictive performance while remaining straightforward to deploy at scale.

Automated driving has made remarkable progress, yet situations still arise where human intervention is necessary. Teleoperation provides a scalable solution to address such cases, enabling remote operators to support vehicles without being physically present. In this context, video transmission forms the operator's primary source of situational awareness, making video quality a decisive factor for both safety and task performance. In an online study, participants rated compressed video sequences from the Zenseact Dataset and provided subjective quality ratings. These ratings were then used to retrain the Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF) model, yielding an adapted variant tailored to teleoperation. The retrained model demonstrated improved alignment with human ratings compared to the original 4K VMAF. In particular, RMSE decreased from 10.36 to 8.83, and MAD from 8.71 to 6.38, corresponding to improvements of 15% and 27%, respectively. These results highlight that incorporating domain-specific data can enhance the predictive power of established quality metrics in safety-critical applications. At the same time, Outlier cases emerged in which videos received high objective scores despite noticeable degradations in regions critical for the driving task.

Off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate text annotation, yet their effectiveness remains underexplored for underrepresented languages and specialized domains where the class definition requires subtle expert understanding. We investigate LLM-based annotation for a novel legal NLP task: identifying the presence and sentiment of credibility assessments in asylum decision texts. We introduce RAB-Cred, a Danish text classification dataset featuring high-quality, expert annotations and valuable metadata such as annotator confidence and asylum case outcome. We benchmark 21 open-weight models and 30 system-user prompt combinations for this task, and systematically evaluate the effect of model and prompt choice for zero-shot and few-shot classification. We zoom in on the errors made by top-performing models and prompts, investigating error consistency across LLMs, inter-class confusion, correlation with human confidence and sample-wise difficulty and severity of LLM mistakes. Our results confirm the potential of LLMs for cost-effective labeling of asylum decisions, but highlight the imperfect and inconsistent nature of LLM annotators, and the need to look beyond the predictions of a single, arbitrarily chosen model. The RAB-Cred dataset and code are available at https://github.com/glhr/RAB-Cred

Validating training data for reasoning models typically requires expensive trial-and-error fine-tuning cycles. In this work, we investigate whether the utility of a reasoning dataset can be reliably predicted prior to training using intrinsic data metrics. We propose a suite of quantitative measures and evaluate their predictive power by fine-tuning 8B and 11B models on semantically distinct variants of a Polish reasoning dataset. Our analysis reveals that these intrinsic metrics demonstrate strong and significant correlations with downstream model performance. Crucially, we find that the predictors of utility are scale-dependent: smaller models rely on alignment-focused metrics to ensure precision, whereas larger models benefit from high redundancy, utilizing verbose traces to solve complex tasks. These findings establish a scale-aware framework for validating reasoning data, enabling practitioners to select effective training sets without the need for exhaustive empirical testing.

LLM recommendation agents increasingly produce structured recommendation reports: sets of items accompanied by natural-language justifications. Yet existing evaluations often reduce this setting to reranking small shortlisted candidate sets or judge reports mainly by semantic plausibility. We introduce Recommendation Atlas (Agentic Tool-Level Assessment for Shopping), or RecoAtlas, a benchmark and toolkit for evaluating shopping agents with behavior-grounded metrics. RecoAtlas complements held-out interaction metrics with learned utility proxies for relevance, complementarity, and diversity derived from interaction data, while separately measuring semantic coherence and explanation quality. Its controlled tool environment exposes agents to either semantic, behavior-aligned, or faulty tools, enabling diagnosis of whether performance gains arise from stronger reasoning, better signals, or more effective tool-use policies. Across controlled experiments, we show that RecoAtlas exhibits key properties of a meaningful benchmark for agentic systems: performance scales with model capacity and test-time compute, improves with stronger and better-aligned tools, degrades under noisy or misaligned signals, and reveals that semantic plausibility does not necessarily capture behavior-grounded utility. RecoAtlas provides a foundation for developing and evaluating shopping assistants that optimize not only for plausible recommendations, but also for coherent, behaviorally grounded recommendation sets.

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 most commonly used metrics for evaluating automatic speech transcriptions, namely Word Error Rate (WER) and Character Error Rate (CER), have been heavily criticized for their poor correlation to human perception and their inability to take into account linguistic and semantic information. While metric-based embeddings, seeking to approximate human perception, have been proposed, their scores remain difficult to interpret, unlike WER and CER. In this article, we overcome this problem by proposing a paradigm that consists in incorporating a chosen metric into it in order to obtain an equivalent of the error rate: a Minimum Edit Distance (minED). This approach parallels transcription errors with their human perception, also allowing an original study of the severity of these errors from a human perspective.

For the use case of comparing the performance of clustering algorithms whose output is a contingency table, a single performance metric for contingency tables is needed. Such a metric is vital for comparative performance analysis of clustering algorithms. A survey of publicly available literature did not show the presence of such a metric. Metrics do exist for vector pairs of truth values and predicted values, which are an alternative form of output of clustering algorithms. However, the metrics for vector pairs do not reveal the presence of detailed features that are apparent in contingency tables. This paper presents the Associativity Peakiness (AP) metric, which characterizes aspects of clustering algorithm performance that are critical for predicting a clustering algorithm's performance when deployed. The AP metric is analogous to measures of quality for confusion matrices that are outputs of supervised learning algorithms. This paper presents results from simulations in which 500 contingency tables were generated for multiple test scenarios. The results show that for the use case of evaluating clustering algorithms, the AP metric characterizes performance of contingency tables with higher dynamic range than publicly available metrics, and that it is computationally more efficient than comparable publicly available metrics.

Modern artificial intelligence is supported by machine learning models (e.g., foundation models) that are pretrained on a massive data corpus and then adapted to solve a variety of downstream tasks. To summarize performance across multiple tasks, evaluation metrics are often aggregated into a summary metric, e.g., average accuracy across 10 question-answering tasks. When aggregating evaluation metrics, it is useful to incorporate uncertainty in the aggregate metric in order to gain a more realistic understanding of model performance. Our objective in this work is to demonstrate how statistical methodology can be used for quantifying uncertainty in metrics that have been aggregated across multiple tasks. The methods we emphasize are bootstrapping, Bayesian hierarchical (i.e., multilevel) modeling, and the visualization of task weightings that consider standard errors. These techniques reveal insights such as the dominance of a specific model for certain types of tasks despite an overall poor performance. We use a popular ML benchmark, the Visual Task Adaptation Benchmark (VTAB), to demonstrate the usefulness of our approaches.