Can We Reliably Rank Model Performance across Domains without Labeled Data?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09519v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 16:29:56 GMT
• Title: Can We Reliably Rank Model Performance across Domains without Labeled Data?
• Authors: Veronica Rammouz, Aaron Gonzalez, Carlos Cruzportillo, Adrian Tan, Nicole Beebe, Anthony Rios,
• Abstract summary: We analyze the factors that affect ranking reliability using a two-step evaluation setup with four base classifiers and several large language models as error predictors.<n>Our analysis reveals two key findings: ranking is more reliable when performance differences across domains are larger, and when the error model's predictions align with the base model's true failure patterns.
• Score: 5.8993591594866155
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Estimating model performance without labels is an important goal for understanding how NLP models generalize. While prior work has proposed measures based on dataset similarity or predicted correctness, it remains unclear when these estimates produce reliable performance rankings across domains. In this paper, we analyze the factors that affect ranking reliability using a two-step evaluation setup with four base classifiers and several large language models as error predictors. Experiments on the GeoOLID and Amazon Reviews datasets, spanning 15 domains, show that large language model-based error predictors produce stronger and more consistent rank correlations with true accuracy than drift-based or zero-shot baselines. Our analysis reveals two key findings: ranking is more reliable when performance differences across domains are larger, and when the error model's predictions align with the base model's true failure patterns. These results clarify when performance estimation methods can be trusted and provide guidance for their use in cross-domain model evaluation.

Related papers

• Beyond Model Ranking: Predictability-Aligned Evaluation for Time Series Forecasting [18.018179328110048]
  We introduce a predictability-aligned diagnostic framework grounded in spectral coherence.<n>We provide the first systematic evidence of "predictability drift", demonstrating that a task's forecasting difficulty varies sharply over time.<n>Our evaluation reveals a key architectural trade-off: complex models are superior for low-predictability data, whereas linear models are highly effective on more predictable tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T02:56:06Z)
• DECIDER: Leveraging Foundation Model Priors for Improved Model Failure Detection and Explanation [18.77296551727931]
  We propose DECIDER, a novel approach that leverages priors from large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) to detect failures in image models. DECIDER consistently achieves state-of-the-art failure detection performance, significantly outperforming baselines in terms of the overall Matthews correlation coefficient.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-01T07:08:11Z)
• Anchor Points: Benchmarking Models with Much Fewer Examples [88.02417913161356]
  In six popular language classification benchmarks, model confidence in the correct class on many pairs of points is strongly correlated across models. We propose Anchor Point Selection, a technique to select small subsets of datasets that capture model behavior across the entire dataset. Just several anchor points can be used to estimate model per-class predictions on all other points in a dataset with low mean absolute error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-14T17:45:51Z)
• Preserving Knowledge Invariance: Rethinking Robustness Evaluation of Open Information Extraction [49.15931834209624]
  We present the first benchmark that simulates the evaluation of open information extraction models in the real world.<n>We design and annotate a large-scale testbed in which each example is a knowledge-invariant clique.<n>By further elaborating the robustness metric, a model is judged to be robust if its performance is consistently accurate on the overall cliques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T12:05:09Z)
• GREAT Score: Global Robustness Evaluation of Adversarial Perturbation using Generative Models [60.48306899271866]
  We present a new framework, called GREAT Score, for global robustness evaluation of adversarial perturbation using generative models. We show high correlation and significantly reduced cost of GREAT Score when compared to the attack-based model ranking on RobustBench. GREAT Score can be used for remote auditing of privacy-sensitive black-box models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T14:58:27Z)
• Estimating Model Performance under Domain Shifts with Class-Specific Confidence Scores [25.162667593654206]
  We introduce class-wise calibration within the framework of performance estimation for imbalanced datasets. We conduct experiments on four tasks and find the proposed modifications consistently improve the estimation accuracy for imbalanced datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-20T15:04:32Z)
• VisFIS: Visual Feature Importance Supervision with Right-for-the-Right-Reason Objectives [84.48039784446166]
  We show that model FI supervision can meaningfully improve VQA model accuracy as well as performance on several Right-for-the-Right-Reason metrics. Our best performing method, Visual Feature Importance Supervision (VisFIS), outperforms strong baselines on benchmark VQA datasets. Predictions are more accurate when explanations are plausible and faithful, and not when they are plausible but not faithful.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-22T17:02:01Z)
• Performance Prediction Under Dataset Shift [1.1602089225841632]
  We study the generalization capabilities of various performance prediction models to new domains by learning on generated synthetic perturbations. We propose a natural and effortless uncertainty estimation of the predicted accuracy that ensures reliable use of performance predictors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-21T19:40:58Z)
• Leveraging Unlabeled Data to Predict Out-of-Distribution Performance [63.740181251997306]
  Real-world machine learning deployments are characterized by mismatches between the source (training) and target (test) distributions. In this work, we investigate methods for predicting the target domain accuracy using only labeled source data and unlabeled target data. We propose Average Thresholded Confidence (ATC), a practical method that learns a threshold on the model's confidence, predicting accuracy as the fraction of unlabeled examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-11T23:01:12Z)
• Unlabelled Data Improves Bayesian Uncertainty Calibration under Covariate Shift [100.52588638477862]
  We develop an approximate Bayesian inference scheme based on posterior regularisation. We demonstrate the utility of our method in the context of transferring prognostic models of prostate cancer across globally diverse populations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-26T13:50:19Z)
• Meta-Learned Confidence for Few-shot Learning [60.6086305523402]
  A popular transductive inference technique for few-shot metric-based approaches, is to update the prototype of each class with the mean of the most confident query examples. We propose to meta-learn the confidence for each query sample, to assign optimal weights to unlabeled queries. We validate our few-shot learning model with meta-learned confidence on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-27T10:22:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.