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.
A biometric verifier is often deployed with a strict false match budget, so only a narrow, low false match rate (FMR) slice of the score range is used. A reporting standard for this setting already exists. ISO/IEC 19795-1 asks for error rates at stated operating points, for the detection error tradeoff (DET) curve as the view of the trade-off between FMR and the false non-match rate (FNMR), and for an interval of uncertainty on every value. In practice, a single area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC), the equal error rate (EER), or a verification accuracy is still reported as the resolution, which is a threshold-independent summary that the standard does not endorse. The full ROC-AUC averages the true match rate (TMR) with equal weight over the whole FMR range from 0 to 1, so almost all of its weight is placed where the system is never operated; low-FMR behavior can then be hidden, and the order of two systems can even be reversed. The guideline is revisited in this paper and tested against seven pretrained matchers across four modalities, face, voice, iris, and fingerprint, each reported with bootstrap confidence intervals and paired bootstrap tests. A system that looks stronger on full ROC-AUC is shown to be significantly worse at FMR = 10^-3. For face, a higher full AUC was obtained by FaceNet, whereas a higher TMR at FMR = 10^-3 was obtained by ArcFace, and both gaps were significant with non-overlapping intervals. Hence, the DET curve and the FNMR at a fixed FMR are re-iterated in this paper as the primary report, with ROC-AUC and EER retained as supplementary context.