REVIEW 2 cited by
Statistical Uncertainty Quantification for Aggregate Performance Metrics in Machine Learning Benchmarks
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Rethinking LLM Parametric Knowledge as Post-retrieval Confidence for Dynamic Retrieval and Reranking
Shifts in an LLM's hidden-state confidence, before and after a retrieved context, are used as a preference signal to fine-tune a reranker and to trigger retrieval only when initial confidence is low.
-
Quantifying Ranking Uncertainty in LLM Benchmarks
MMLU ranking uncertainty is dominated by subject-level variability; rank confidence intervals widen substantially when subjects are treated as the sampling unit.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.