Efficient SWE Agent Benchmarking via Trajectory-Aware Evaluation

Evaluating software engineering agents on realistic benchmarks is costly, since each task may require multi-step code exploration, modification, and test execution. Existing efficient evaluation methods select representative subsets to estimate full-benchmark performance, but are largely result-only: they fit historical pass/fail response matrices or static task semantics, discarding how agents solve problems. We propose PTA-IRT, a Privileged Trajectory-Aware Item Response Theory framework that fuses process and outcome signals. Historical execution trajectories supply process-level evidence beyond pass/fail, such as explored context, attempted edits, and solving paths, which PTA-IRT uses as privileged information for calibration subset selection and ability estimation. Under low calibration budgets, PTA-IRT consistently outperforms prior IRT baselines on score and ranking recovery across four SWE benchmarks. Code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/PTA-IRT.

A Composable Evaluation System for Reproducible Omni-Modal Foundation Model Evaluation

Building an omni-modal foundation model means evaluating it across text, image, video, and audio. Excellent evaluation toolkits exist for each modality, but their inference engines, prompt conventions, and metric implementations are mutually incompatible, so practitioners end up maintaining separate environments for every toolchain and still struggle to compare results across them. OmniEvaluator grew out of this need in our own model development: rather than reimplementing benchmarks, it connects existing inference engines and curated evaluation libraries at a higher level, exposing four inference backends, four evaluation frameworks, and over a thousand benchmarks through a single interface. Every run is recorded as an artifact capturing the full configuration for exact reproduction, and results flow into a shared dashboard for cross-model comparison. A federated mode shares GPU inference servers across concurrent evaluations, and a built-in verifier, small enough to run on CPU, keeps its score stable across engines and prompts where rule-based scoring fluctuates under configuration mismatch, matching cost-efficient commercial LLM judges without their recurring API cost. The system, demo video, and dashboard are publicly available. (https://github.com/naver-ai/omni-evaluator)

Reliable Benchmarking of Artifact Detection in Computational Pathology: A Reproducibility and Uncertainty Analysis

Background and Objective: Quality control is a prerequisite for whole-slide image analysis, yet the benchmarks on which quality-control methods are compared share four properties that make their reported differences hard to interpret: few independent slides, annotation concentrated in a minority of them, pooled ratio metrics with no closed-form standard error, and a single inherited train/test partition. We propose a reliability protocol for such benchmarks. Methods: The protocol quantifies four sources of variability - test-set sampling, training stochasticity, partition composition, and undocumented preprocessing - a claim is reportable only if it survives all four; three of the four cost minutes of compute. We apply it to an independent reconstruction of a published diffusion-based artifact detector, evaluated on the original 24-slide partition and against a supervised baseline. Results: The method's central mechanism reproduces: the auxiliary contrastive term improves pooled F1 from 0.673 to 0.688 and replicates under a second seed (+0.0156, p = 0.031; +0.0190, p = 0.005), although it acts on pen marking rather than the artifact types cited to motivate it. Its comparative claims do not: differences between design variants, and against the supervised baseline, fall inside the uncertainty of the evaluation. Four of 24 slides carry 70% of scored annotated pixels, giving an effective sample size of 6.2, and the inherited partition sits at the 7th percentile. An unreported tissue-restriction step excludes 41.4% of out-of-focus annotation against 2.6% of air bubble; such a gate is confounded with blur by construction. Conclusions: Small-cohort benchmarks support far weaker conclusions than current reporting implies. The four checks are cheap enough to accompany any evaluation on such a resource and separate reproducible effects from differences the evaluation cannot resolve.

MedSegBenchmarker: A Raw-Count-First Framework for Controlled 2D Medical Image Segmentation Benchmarks

Despite rapid advances in MIS, fair and reproducible comparisons of segmentation models remain challenging due to heterogeneous datasets, inconsistent evaluation protocols, and rapidly evolving architectures. In particular, comparisons often implicitly assume that model rankings are invariant to data partitioning, preprocessing, metric aggregation, uncertainty estimation, and computational constraints. The lack of extensible and unified evaluation frameworks further limits systematic investigation of new models, datasets, and training paradigms. We present MEDSEGBENCHMARKER (MSB), a configuration-driven framework for controlled benchmarking of 2D MIS. It integrates duplicate and near-duplicate image detection, group-aware data splitting, YAML study specifications, resumable training, hyperparameter optimization, cross-validation, and checkpoint-based evaluation. Rather than retaining only aggregate performance measures, MSB exports sample- and class-level pixel counts and predictions together with the evaluation context. These elementary artifacts enable post-hoc analyses without repeated inference. We demonstrate MSB in a case study involving three heterogeneous 2D datasets and multiple MIS and general-purpose vision models evaluated at 256- and 512-pixel input resolutions. Reaggregation of identical predictions changes the top-ranked architecture in three of six dataset-resolution settings, despite high rank correlations between aggregation strategies. Increasing input resolution produces model- and dataset-dependent performance gains and losses that must be considered alongside empirically measured inference complexity. These results show that seemingly minor choices in evaluation and experimental setup can affect benchmark conclusions. MSB, available at GitHub, provides a practical and extensible basis for making benchmark conditions and evaluation choices explicit and reproducible.

Technical Comparative Benchmarking Study: Advanced AI Hybrid Methods for Renewable Energy Farm Optimization and Forecasting

This study provides a comprehensive benchmarking of conventional machine learning (ML), ensemble learning, deep neural networks, recurrent architectures, Transformers, graph based models, and hybrid ensemble deep learning approaches under complementary renewable energy scenarios. Three datasets are considered: a large scale WEC dataset, a 16 WEC dataset, and operational 10 min SCADA measurements at the Penmanshiel wind farm. For structured WEC layout data, tree ensembles exhibited a clear advantage over conventional ML and neural predictors because randomized partitioning and boosting efficiently captured nonlinear layout power interactions without requiring explicit feature representation learning. The Extra Trees was the strongest model, achieving considerable results. Relative to the MLP baseline, this corresponds to an approximately 63.7% reduction in MAE, demonstrating the suitability of randomized tree ensembles for high dimensional structured WEC data. Also, STGCN reduced the MAE to approximately 167.0 kW and achieved R = 0.93 by explicitly learning spatial and temporal turbine interactions. The best overall forecasting accuracy was obtained by the RF BiLSTM hybrid, with an MAE=150.5 kW. Compared with standalone LSTM, this represents an approximately 75% reduction in MAE, while improving on STGCN by approximately 10.0%. Finally, the experiments reveal that no single AI architecture is universally optimal: randomized and boosted ensembles are particularly effective for structured WEC surrogate modeling, graph networks become advantageous when explicit spatial interactions dominate, and ensemble recurrent hybrids provide the strongest balance when nonlinear tabular relationships and temporal dynamics coexist.

The Reasoning Tax: Token Economics of LLM Reasoning Across Task Types and Deployment Contexts

Accuracy-only benchmarking of reasoning-capable large language models misses a central deployment question: when do extended thinking tokens earn their cost? We introduce the Token Economy Score (TES), a marginal benchmarking metric that measures the accuracy gain of a reasoning model over a non-reasoning baseline, normalized by the generated-token multiplier. We define paired and approximated TES variants for model families with reasoning toggles and frontier models without direct non-reasoning counterparts. We then conduct an empirical benchmarking analysis across 151 model-benchmark evaluation runs on seven benchmarks spanning mathematics, code generation, science reasoning, instruction following, expert knowledge, knowledge recall, and research-level physics. The analysis examines three deployment-facing dimensions: which task structures yield positive marginal reasoning efficiency, how increasing reasoning effort changes TES within model families, and how deployment context changes economic viability. Results show that task structure predicts reasoning efficiency better than nominal difficulty: sequential inferencechain tasks such as AIME 2025 and LiveCodeBench show high TES, while knowledge-recall tasks such as MMLU-Pro show low TES despite their difficulty. We also find systematic diminishing returns at higher reasoning effort levels, including cases where additional thinking reduces accuracy. Finally, Reasoning Cost Share (RCS) shows that inference spend is often dominated by internal thinking, while Deployment Cost Multiplier (DCM) shows how on-premises deployment can change the economics of otherwise costly reasoning workloads. These findings support a benchmarking-driven model-selection rule: enable reasoning selectively by task type, effort level, and deployment context rather than treating it as a universally beneficial mode.

Using profiles of cognitive capability to assess AI suitability for workplace tasks

Organisations deploying AI face a scoping problem: which tasks can be automated, which should remain with humans, and which are best shared between the two. Aggregate benchmark scores provide little insight into where systems will succeed or fail in practice, while human judgements of model capabilities quickly become outdated. We introduce a pipeline that profiles agents and tasks using a shared set of core cognitive capabilities. Cognitive capability profiling infers an agent's capabilities from performance on a benchmark battery annotated for the cognitive demands of each item. Task requirements weighting elicits from domain experts the relative importance of these same capabilities for their work. As both use a common set of cognitive dimensions, they can be updated independently as models and roles change, and combined to estimate AI suitability at the level of a domain, organisation, role, or individual duty. We validate capability recovery on synthetic agents, profile six AI systems, and elicit task requirements from 410 employees across six occupational domains. AI systems differed more across cognitive dimensions than across model families, while workplace activities converged on a shared cognitive core. The resulting scores provide a comparative scoping tool for identifying promising candidates for piloting and areas where current systems are unlikely to be well suited. We discuss extending the framework to profile human workers alongside AI systems, moving from AI suitability towards human-machine task allocation.

Flower Hub: A Reproducible Benchmarking Platform for Federated Learning in Simulation and Deployment

Federated learning (FL) has emerged as a key approach for training models across decentralized data, yet benchmarking in FL remains difficult to reproduce, compare, and extend. Existing evaluations are often tied to custom infrastructure, released as incomplete research code, and conducted primarily in simulation, which limits portability and practical relevance. We present Flower Hub, a platform for publishing, discovering, and executing decentralized and federated applications. We show how it enables reproducible benchmarking by packaging benchmarks as executable, versioned applications with standardized metadata, pinned dependencies, and explicit evaluation workflows. We instantiate this approach with a multi-domain benchmark suite spanning cross-silo and cross-device settings, and including tasks in medical imaging, financial tabular learning, legal instruction tuning, phishing URL detection, and audio tagging. We further demonstrate that the same benchmarking application can run across both simulation and deployment runtimes without changing the application code, enabling unified evaluation across varying learning environments. Beyond model quality, our benchmark design supports system-aware reporting, including runtime and communication metrics. This work advances benchmarking in FL settings from ad hoc code artifacts towards portable, executable, and reusable benchmark applications.

From Numerical Simulators of PDEs to Neural Emulators and Back

Simulation is central to modern engineering and science, but the cost of numerical solvers for partial differential equations (PDEs) remains a bottleneck whenever fast or many-query evaluations are required. Neural emulators trained on solver-generated data promise significant speedups, yet they are usually framed as opaque alternatives to the very methods that produce their training signal. This thesis argues the two paradigms are more alike than different: neural architectures mirror classical discretizations, their errors are amenable to the same spectral analysis, and insight flows profitably in both directions. We approach the relationship by disentangling the multiple roles a solver plays in the emulator learning pipeline. Mode-wise Fourier analysis then provides a common language in which solver errors, architectural inductive biases, and training objectives can all be read off simultaneously. Taken together, this allows synthesizing three contributions. (1) APEBench, a comprehensive benchmarking suite for autoregressive neural emulators of PDEs that uses fast differentiable pseudo-spectral solvers in JAX. (2) Progressively Refined Differentiable Physics, an investigation of the effect of unconverged solvers on surrogate training. (3) Neural Emulator Superiority, an analysis of the influence of numerical errors and architectural inductive biases.

Recursive Agentic Reasoning

Test-time reasoning methods such as iterative refinement, decomposition, and repeated sampling are often evaluated in isolation, making their gains difficult to compare across models, benchmarks, and evaluation pipelines. We introduce a unified view of these methods as recursion operators over an agent's reasoning trace: GROW, which deepens a single reasoning path; PRUNE, which decomposes and recomposes the problem; and BRANCH, which samples alternative reasoning paths and selects among them. We evaluate all three operators against a single-pass chain-of-thought baseline under a shared harness with identical prompts, token budgets, and grading code. Across five benchmarks and three frontier models, comprising 14 model-benchmark settings, 49,327 graded items, and 151,876 model calls, BRANCH improves accuracy in all 14 settings by an average of 5.98 percentage points and is the best-performing operator in 12. In contrast, GROW yields a mean gain of 2.18 points and degrades performance in two settings, while PRUNE improves accuracy by 0.94 points on average. Analysis shows that BRANCH's advantage arises not only from exploring multiple reasoning paths, but also from recovering from truncation: its gains strongly correlate with the baseline rate of empty, budget-exhausted outputs (r = 0.72). These results weaken the hypothesis that different problems require routing among test-time reasoning operators; at this level of abstraction, repeated branching is consistently dominant. Finally, we show that unpaired evaluation and treating scoring-pipeline failures as model errors can materially change, and even reverse, comparative conclusions, motivating paired scoring as a standard protocol for test-time-compute evaluation.

Grouping the Stochastic Machine: Precision, Not Capability, as the Frontier Metric for AI Systems

Frontier language models are compared, marketed, and benchmarked on capability -- what their best or average output can achieve. I argue this measures the wrong axis. The models have saturated accuracy: their mean output lands on the target. What now separates one system from another in practice is precision: how tightly concentrated their outputs are around that target across repeated, identical requests. Borrowing the marksman's distinction, capability is where the average shot lands; reliability is the size of the group. I make three claims. First, precision, not capability, is the frontier differentiator between systems, and benchmark culture systematically fails to measure it, reporting central tendency rather than spread. Second, precision is measurable, cheaply and without circularity, by running a fixed suite of deterministically scored tasks many times at fixed temperature and computing the per-task consistency of outcomes -- no model-in-the-loop grader required. Third, the measurement is not merely descriptive but decision-guiding: it separates consistent failures (a tight group off-centre, correctable by the operating discipline of Paper 1 -- a sight adjustment) from scattered failures (a wide group, correctable only by changing the model or its sampling -- a rifle problem). I define a grouping metric, specify a harness, and show how tracking a human-AI pair's grouping over time yields the compounding signal that Paper 1's field study requires. A first real run, since replicated, illustrates both the method and its most important limit: one measured gap was closed completely by a single rule (0/5 -> 5/5), while a suite of tasks authored from the rules themselves found no value, because a frontier model already embodies explicit good practice -- establishing that a discipline's worth is found by measurement on real work, not constructed from its own rulebook.

Reproducible Multimodal Affordance Prediction

Affordance prediction is the identification of potential actions an agent can perform on a target object from multimodal inputs. Affordance prediction methods are difficult to evaluate and compare due to heterogeneous problem formulations, inconsistent dataset annotations, incomplete reporting of experimental protocols, and limited information about deployment conditions. These limitations challenge fair benchmarking and performance comparison. To promote transparency, we propose the Affordance Sheet, a documentation detailing task formulation with its input modalities, model architectures and training information, datasets, and experimental protocols. Affordance Sheets enable reproducible benchmarking and reliable evaluation of affordance models for real-world scenarios, including generalisation to novel conditions and human safety.

Benchmarking Quantum Machine Learning for Power-System Attack Detection: Evaluation Choices Decide the Outcome Before the Models Do

Machine-learning detectors for power-system cyberattacks are themselves attack surfaces, and quantum machine learning has been proposed for them. We benchmark fidelity-kernel SVMs and variational classifiers against six tuned classical models on public power-system attack data (Mississippi State/ORNL), across white-box, transfer, decision-based black-box, and poisoning attacks. Our headline finding is methodological: the benchmark's answers are set by the evaluator's choices before the models. Eight choices -- six in the evaluation protocol, two in the tuning the benchmark itself runs -- each reversed or moved a conclusion at fixed models. The largest is the split: the row-level protocol scores 0.905 macro-F1 where holding whole source files out leaves 0.594, and in the capped matched-dimensionality regime the quantum arm sits within noise of chance with the classical arm 0.024 above it. A fidelity kernel looks most robust until attacked directly (retention 0.886 to 0.064); a mis-fitted surrogate manufactures a 10x asymmetry; an unseeded black-box attack moves 75% between restarts. A positive control explains the accuracy null: the labels, not the pipeline. We give the control that catches each choice and release the seeded benchmark.

Certifying Compressed Language Models: An Audit and a Statistical Toolkit

A fraction of a point of benchmark accuracy is the usual evidence that a compressed model is equivalent to its original. That quantity is least informative when two models are most alike: a net delta is what survives cancellation between opposing per-item changes, and cancellation is most complete in the regime equivalence claims occupy. Across an atlas of 1,707 paired model-by-task cells mined from public per-item evaluation dumps (1.3B-405B), churn runs roughly five times the net accuracy delta, and cells scoring identically to their baseline still disagree on individual items. In a preregistered audit of 17 equivalence claims from three registered frames (method papers, model cards, vendor documentation), 16 are eligible. None states a prospective numerical equivalence margin, and none releases task-matched per-item outputs, though 3 release outputs for other tasks only; 5 report too little to assess numerically, so a reader cannot check them at any sample size. We audit evidential sufficiency, not truth: no claim is called false. We supply the missing instrument: paired equivalence testing at a declared margin, with certification tables giving the items an evaluation needs, computed from disagreement observed under compression, not from independent-binomial variance. A controlled experiment pairs GPTQ and AWQ on byte-identical calibration samples across five seeds. Under the frozen eight-cell decision rule H3 is supported: changing the calibration draw was sufficient to reverse the observed method ordering in 5 of 8 confirmatory cells. The reporting standard we propose is five lines: declare a margin, run the paired test, report churn beside net delta, cite the sample size you met, release per-item outputs. It applies to any comparison between two models alike enough to be worth comparing. All per-item outputs, protocols and code are released.

When Is an Agent Evaluation Over? Outcome Finality and Cross-Unit Separation

Agent evaluations commonly score the state observed when a run stops and count the run as one trial. Interpreting that score as a final result from a separate trial requires outcome finality and cross-unit separation. Outcome finality requires that later events cannot change the claimed result, while cross-unit separation requires that earlier runs cannot change the relevant conditions of later ones. The endpoint establishes neither condition by itself, and the two can hold independently. Waiting for a delayed outcome may settle the label even though its state remains available to another run. Isolation may prevent carryover even though the scored outcome remains unresolved. We develop a completion argument that identifies the evidence needed for each decision. A final success or failure label is justified only when every relevant effect is resolved or bounded tightly enough to fix the outcome. Any remaining uncertainty must be reported. First, in a controlled replay with fixed agent actions, we find that endpoint and terminal labels differ for every nonzero-delay operation and that a delayed write changes the next run's score under shared state but has no such effect after namespacing or verified reset. Second, in a review of ten public protocols, we find that reset or deliberate retention is documented explicitly more often than unfinished operations or evidence for separate scoring. Finally, we propose an open-effects record for operations and resources that may remain relevant after the endpoint, their status, and their possible effects on the scored outcome or another run.

Large-scale Testing Global Optimization Methods with Black-box Adversarial Attacks

Existing global optimization benchmark suites are of a moderate size and are based on a small number of analytical functions that date back even to the 1970s. This causes a risk of biasing the development of global optimization methods. We argue that the tasks related to the black-box adversarial attack (BBAA) can serve as valuable global optimization benchmark in many-dimensional space. We demonstrate the efficiency of several types of evolutionary algorithms and other metaheuristics in solving example BBAA problems. Thus, we take a step towards convergence of global optimization methods to the challenges and needs that arise in the modern machine learning field.

Benchmark-Based Comparative Assessment of Publicly Benchmarked Indian Foundation Models: A Capability and Evaluation-Maturity Framework

Governments increasingly fund indigenous foundation models to strengthen national AI capability, digital sovereignty, and multilingual computing. Assessing the progress of such national ecosystems is complicated by inconsistent benchmark reporting, proprietary evaluation methodologies, and rapidly evolving model releases. This paper presents a structured, benchmark-based comparative assessment of publicly benchmarked Indian foundation models against global frontier and comparable-scale models, across eight capability domains: general-purpose reasoning, coding and software engineering, agentic AI and computer use, cybersecurity, vision and image understanding, video and multimodal understanding, scientific research, and Indic language capability. Using only publicly reported benchmark results, we find that Indian models achieve strong scores on established benchmarks such as MMLU and MATH-500. However, these benchmarks are now widely regarded as saturated, and frontier developers no longer report them. Indian models participate far less frequently in newer, agentic, and domain-specialized evaluations. Benchmark participation is also highly uneven across Indian organizations. Among the models surveyed, Sarvam AI reports the broadest benchmark coverage by a substantial margin. We propose an exploratory four-dimension Benchmark Maturity Index (BMI), scoring each capability domain on standardization, participation, independent verification, and national coverage. We show that the BMI refines, and in some cases revises, the maturity judgments that a purely descriptive review would produce. We argue that many apparent capability gaps in the public record cannot be distinguished, on available evidence, from evaluation-ecosystem gaps. This has direct implications for how national AI programs should design monitoring and funding criteria.

TokenPowerSandbox: Evidence-Gated CPU-First Screening for Energy-Aware LLM Serving

Energy-aware LLM serving requires comparing configurations under realistic request shapes, yet exhaustive target-GPU profiling is costly and a cheap predictor can be dangerously confident outside its measured scope. We present TokenPowerSandbox, an evidence-gated workflow that combines an interpretable CPU-resident projector, short target-GPU probes, full-workload verification, and tamper-evident freeze-before-measurement provenance. On one NVIDIA H100 80GB serving Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct with vLLM, three anchor repeats and six development workloads calibrate workload transfer. The same frozen model is evaluated on a blind holdout and a separately predeclared no-refit confirmation totaling 51 post-freeze runs. Energy MAPE is 6.23% and 7.35%, with Spearman rank correlations of 0.976 and 0.933. However, a predeclared TTFT gate passes at concurrency four (9.27% MAPE) and triggers abstention below four (64.80%), showing why energy accuracy cannot certify latency.

Evaluating Generative Time-Series Models on Data with Point Masses

Many of the series that generative time-series models are benchmarked on place a large probability mass on a single value --- it does not rain, no ride is requested, no part is ordered. We report what happens when such data is evaluated carefully. First, the standard rolling-origin protocol can score a model on a window whose atom structure bears no resemblance to the dataset: on one benchmark the dataset is $42\%$ zeros and the evaluation windows are $13\%$, on another $47\%$ against $5\%$. This is not a cosmetic problem --- it reversed one of our own conclusions, turning the strongest occurrence model in our study into what looked like a cautionary tale. Second, we give a control in which CRPS is invariant \emph{by construction} while the temporal coupling is destroyed, which measures exactly how much that coupling contributes to a chosen statistic. Third, benchmarking seven models on a matched protocol over five seeds, an autoregressive hurdle beats a conditional flow on five of six datasets, by up to a factor of $153$, while the flow's own occurrence statistics vary by up to $62\%$ across training seeds and every baseline is deterministic. Finally, the model ordering is not the same under five different occurrence statistics, and the two that do not share a construction agree with each other least.

TSDS-Toolbox: A Toolbox for Measuring Time-Series Dataset Similarity

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly accelerated research in time-series analysis, particularly in forecasting, classification, and generation tasks. Recent models, especially foundation models, benefit from time-series dataset similarity due to its significant role in source dataset selection for fine-tuning. However, many existing implementations for benchmarking time-series dataset similarity methods are fragmented and difficult to extend. To address this, we present a unified framework, the Time-Series Dataset Similarity Toolbox (TSDS-Toolbox). Our work enables (1) systematic and reproducible comparisons of time-series dataset similarity methods; (2) flexible extensibility for users to add customized datasets, similarity methods, and downstream time-series tasks; and (3) consistent evaluation of both dataset-level and series-level similarity methods through integrated time-series dataset reducers. The effectiveness of TSDS-Toolbox is validated through comprehensive experiments under diverse experimental settings. Our toolbox is publicly available.

Winning by Peeking: Unenforced Budgets and Test-Set Selection Inflate Short-Budget AutoML Comparisons

Comparisons between AutoML systems at short time budgets -- tens of seconds rather than hours -- are common in tool READMEs and workshop papers, and they are easy to get wrong. We report a case study in which a simple AutoML engine, Orcetra, appeared to beat FLAML and AutoGluon on 513 OpenML datasets, winning 57.1% of them at a nominal 60-second budget and 78.4% of datasets against FLAML alone at 30 seconds. Both margins came from protocol defects that a results table cannot show. The search loop scored every candidate on the test split and reported the best, making the headline metric a maximum over dozens of noisy estimates while the baselines selected on training data and touched the test set once; and the budget was checked before launching a candidate but never enforced during one, so the system consumed a median of 120 s against a 60-second budget, 2.24x the wall-clock AutoGluon used. Re-running with selection moved to a validation split, the deadline enforced externally and every framework pinned to an equal share of the machine, Orcetra's win rate on the re-run subset falls from 59.4% to 34.3% and no pairwise difference against either competitor remains significant. Recording both estimands inside a single search lets us attribute the collapse: the selection rule accounts for 4.8 percentage points and unequal compute for most of the rest. The same traces give the selection bias as a function of budget, measured rather than assumed: it grows with $K$ but reaches only 0.27 accuracy points, about five times below the $σ\sqrt{2\ln K}$ bound a marginal-standard-error argument predicts, because candidates scored on shared test rows cancel most of the noise. We close with a checklist for short-budget comparisons. Code, per-dataset results and the scripts that regenerate every number and figure in the paper are released with it.

Unmasking Removal-Budget Confounding: A Matched Operating-Point Evaluation Framework for Adaptive Data Cleaning

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.

What We Observe as LLM Behavior Can Be a Side-effect of Inference Backend

Benchmark scores are reported as properties of a model, yet the inference framework used to produce them, such as HuggingFace, vLLM, or Ollama, are considered non-influential and their names and versions are almost never disclosed. In this work we investigate how much this choice can influence the model output. In a fully-crossed study (three instruction-tuned models x five inference frameworks x six benchmarks x four generation modes) we investigate how different tools (wrappers/backend) influence benchmark scores and how their score changes is influenced by generation hyper-parameters. We find backend to be a non-negligible factor where even under greedy, sampling-noise-free decoding, changing the backend can significantly alter models performance and this effect is structural and strongly model-dependent. Decomposing the variance according to generation mode reveal that considerable portion of the variability (roughly 39\%) a practitioner sees out-of-the-box can stem from the backend, while the remaining stems from sampling noise and each framework's default generation parameters, both of which are avoidable by disclosing and matching the generation configuration. These divergences are more pronounced on factual than on social-bias benchmarks. Overall, benchmark numbers are not backend-agnostic therefore, we recommend disclosing the backend, its version, and the full generation configuration, also using deterministic decoding for cross-backend comparison.

Design Choices That Matter: A Functional ANOVA Analysis for Remote Sensing Multi-Label Classification

Benchmarking deep learning (DL) models for multi-label classification (MLC) of remote sensing images (RSI) typically yields rankings that do not generalize beyond the evaluated datasets. In this work, we move beyond rankings by employing functional analysis of variance (fANOVA) to systematically quantify the contributions of individual design choices and their interactions to performance variability. We conduct two empirical analyses covering 48 and 20 DL models, respectively, spanning design choices such as network architecture, fine-tuning strategy, learning strategy, and initialization. By applying fANOVA across seven MLC RSI datasets, we construct dataset meta-representations that capture design-choice sensitivity profiles. Hierarchical clustering of these meta-representations reveals that datasets naturally group according to how they respond to design decisions, with patterns strongly linked to intrinsic dataset properties such as scale, spatial resolution, and label space complexity. Our findings show that for large-scale datasets, fine-tuning strategy and architecture are dominant factors, while in data-limited regimes, initialization becomes decisive. For intermediate regimes, the interaction between architecture and learning strategy governs performance.

Why Ranking Anomaly Detection Algorithms Isn't as Reliable as You May Think

Anomaly detection is a safety-critical machine learning problem with applications ranging from fraud detection to network intrusion prevention and industrial monitoring. Despite the large number of proposed anomaly detection algorithms, many novel methods claim state-of-the-art performance. However, many authors do so under benchmark settings that are not aligned with one another. This lack of comparability raises concerns regarding the reproducibility and reliability of anomaly detection benchmarks. In this work, we study the impact of common benchmarking choices on the stability of algorithm rankings. Using seven representative anomaly detection algorithms and 690 datasets from the OddBench benchmark suite, we analyze how rankings change under varying dataset selections, evaluation metrics, hyperparameter configurations, and random seeds. To quantify this effect, we introduce a rank instability metric measuring the variability of algorithm rankings across benchmark settings. Our results show that algorithm rankings in anomaly detection are highly unstable. In many cases, almost every competitive algorithm can appear as the best-performing method under some benchmark configuration. Among the studied factors, dataset selection and hyperparameter choice contribute most strongly to ranking uncertainty, while random seeds and evaluation metrics have a comparatively limited impact. We also observe that reliable benchmarking requires substantially larger and more diverse dataset collections than the ones commonly used in prior work.

Statistical comparisons of time-series feature sets on classification tasks

In recent years, numerous open-source software libraries have been developed for computing sets of features from univariate time series. The type and number of features vary across these feature sets, which have been constructed with varying disciplinary perspectives on quantifying structure in time-series data. To date, the relative strengths and weaknesses of these feature sets on time-series classification problems remains largely unexplored. Here we aimed to understand the relative performance of six open-source feature sets and three baseline feature sets (based on distributional and/or basic spectral structure) across 124 univariate time-series classification problems using a normalization-based approach to problem-level benchmarking that better indexes the relative strengths and weaknesses of different algorithms compared to prior rank-based approaches. Despite their dramatic differences in size, composition, and computation time, we found that feature sets performed relatively similarly overall (85.3% of pairwise comparisons resulted in ties), with the largest feature set, tsfresh, exhibiting the strongest overall performance (29.03% wins across all pairwise comparisons against other feature sets). We also highlighted specific problems on which the specific composition of a given feature set gave it a substantial performance advantage or disadvantage, and problems where simple baselines comprised of Fourier coefficients and quantiles were sufficient to achieve strong performance. Our results demonstrate the need to consider problem-level performance when benchmarking time-series feature sets, and highlight the importance of feature make-up in driving relative classification performance.

Semantic Alignment of AI Models: Concept Collapse, Checkpoint Dynamics, and Cross-Lingual Transfer

Language model benchmarking is a difficult task. Outcome reasoning alone does not test the model's conceptualization of language and popular open-source benchmarks are quickly saturated or ingested as training data. It is important to test the model's output, but augmenting these tests by characterizing semantic structure gives more insight to how models relate abstract concepts. However, the high dimensional embedding spaces are not easy to interpret. This work demonstrates how topological methods can be used to rigorously compare these spaces to low dimensional and interpretable baselines like ontologies and curated knowledge graphs. These multi-modal alignment tests make it possible to track model adaptations and test phrase understanding across multiple languages.

A reproducible and extensible framework for benchmarking competing risks survival models

A wide range of statistical and machine learning methods have been proposed for survival analysis with competing risks, where the occurrence of one event (i.e., cancer death) precludes the occurrence of other events (i.e., cardiovascular disease death). Despite these methodological advances, their systematic evaluation and adoption are limited by the lack of comprehensive, reproducible and extensible benchmarking frameworks. We developed an open-source benchmarking framework for competing risks models that enables their systematic comparison across multiple datasets under different aspects of performance; calibration, discrimination, overall prediction error and clinical utility. We additionally introduce an extension of SHAP for competing risks, allowing model-agnostic interpretability of covariates contributions over time. All our code is publicly available via GitHub:https://github.com/BBolosSierra/CompRisksBenchmark

BayesAME: Bayesian Active Model Evaluation

Evaluating large generative models across benchmarks is time-consuming and computationally expensive. This drives the need for methods that can estimate full benchmark performance by evaluating models on only a subset of items, known as a coreset. Current literature mostly requires the practitioner to input a coreset size. However, when reliable performance estimation takes priority over efficiency, an evaluation method should also be capable of automatically determining a coreset size that reflects this priority. We introduce BayesAME, a sequential Bayesian framework specifically targeting automatic determination of the coreset size. BayesAME models performance as a random variable by defining a latent ability for each group of items sharing the same historical model performances, with a joint prior distribution encoding the belief that the target model behaves similarly to these historical models. The posterior distribution over these abilities is used to derive performance estimators, quantify performance uncertainty, and select items to add to the coreset via an information-gain criterion. The coreset is iteratively augmented until the performance estimate fluctuation and the performance uncertainty fall below their respective user-defined thresholds. We propose a multi-target extension that captures performance correlations across multiple target models to further reduce the coreset size. Through extensive experiments across diverse benchmarks, we demonstrate that BayesAME consistently outperforms sequential adaptations of existing methods. Crucially, our comprehensive analysis addresses recent skepticism in the literature, establishing that non-random coreset selection is advantageous over random selection. Finally, we highlight that leveraging continuous response log-likelihoods over traditional binary scores significantly enhances estimation accuracy.

Benchmarking the Residual: What Long-Horizon Evaluations Add Beyond Matched Short-Task Performance

Long-horizon benchmarks often show that agents fail more as tasks become longer. This observation is useful for deployment, but it does not by itself explain why failure occurs. More stages create more opportunities for ordinary errors to compound; longer tasks may also contain harder individual decisions or become harder as conversation history, tool outputs, and environment changes accumulate. We use trajectory-induced degradation to mean this last possibility: earlier execution makes later work harder. When the harmful accumulation is specifically the text visible to the model, it is often called context rot. In this position paper, we argue that to claim a "long-horizon failure", benchmarks must compare actual full-task success against a baseline prediction built from short, individual stages. We call the log-ratio between this prediction and actual success the horizon residual. The comparison must use the same agent configuration and specify in advance how stages, checkpoints, information, and budgets will be chosen. The residual shows that the full rollout differs from the chosen baseline; targeted experiments are still needed to explain why.