Multi-Dimensional Model Integrity and Responsibility Assessment Index and Scoring Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14550v1
• Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 08:29:36 GMT
• Title: Multi-Dimensional Model Integrity and Responsibility Assessment Index and Scoring Framework
• Abstract summary: We propose the Model Integrity and Responsibility Assessment Index (MIRAI) to measure explainability, fairness, robustness, privacy, and sustainability.<n>MIRAI combines established metrics through normalized and direction-aligned dimension scores.<n>We show that higher predictive performance does not necessarily imply better overall integrity and responsibility.
• Score: 1.7038535698746309
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence in high-stakes tabular domains cannot be evaluated by predictive performance alone, yet current practice still assesses explainability, fairness, robustness, privacy, and sustainability mostly in isolation. We propose the Model Integrity and Responsibility Assessment Index (MIRAI), a unified evaluation framework that measures tabular models across these five dimensions under a controlled comparison setting and aggregates them into a single score. MIRAI combines established metrics through normalized and direction-aligned dimension scores, which enables direct comparison across models with different architectural and computational profiles. Experiments on healthcare, financial, and socioeconomic datasets show that higher predictive performance does not necessarily imply better overall integrity and responsibility. In several cases, simpler models achieve a stronger cross-dimensional balance than more complex deep tabular architectures. MIRAI provides a compact and practical basis for responsible model selection in regulated settings.

Related papers

• CollabEval: Statistically Efficient Collaborative Model Evaluation via Matrix Completion [65.53153291902454]
  Collaborative Evaluation (CollabEval) is a simple, effective, and principled method for exploiting dependencies between historical runs of different models on the same tasks to improve statistical efficiency.<n>We build a low-rank approximation of the score matrix, and use the reconstructed values to guarantee unbiased estimates of the true evaluation metric mean.<n>We find that CollabEval substantially reduces the mean confidence interval size, and the mean squared error of the point estimate, compared to baseline methods at the same annotation budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T13:22:04Z)
• Evaluating Uplift Modeling under Structural Biases: Insights into Metric Stability and Model Robustness [8.135022024189306]
  In personalized marketing, uplift models estimate incremental effects by modeling how customer behavior changes under alternative treatments.<n>Real-world data often exhibit biases, such as selection bias, spillover effects, and unobserved confounding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-21T11:54:25Z)
• CDRRM: Contrast-Driven Rubric Generation for Reliable and Interpretable Reward Modeling [61.75914342638658]
  CDRRM (Contrast-Driven Reward Model) is a framework for high-quality rubric generation and guided preference judgment.<n>This work offers a scalable, interpretable, and data-efficient path for reward modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T07:15:23Z)
• IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluation [85.56193980646981]
  We propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following.<n>For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses.<n>Experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T02:21:17Z)
• How Reliable are Confidence Estimators for Large Reasoning Models? A Systematic Benchmark on High-Stakes Domains [7.845652284569666]
  miscalibration of Large Reasoning Models undermines their reliability in high-stakes domains.<n>We introduce the Reasoning Model Confidence estimation Benchmark (RMCB), a public resource of 347,496 reasoning traces from six popular LRMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-13T01:55:48Z)
• RAISE: A Unified Framework for Responsible AI Scoring and Evaluation [0.0]
  We introduce RAISE (Responsible AI Scoring and Evaluation), a unified framework that quantifies model performance across four dimensions and aggregates them into a single Responsibility Score.<n>Our findings reveal critical trade-offs: the Transformer excelled in explainability and fairness at a very high environmental cost, and the Tabular ResNet offered a balanced profile.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T12:15:13Z)
• Conformalized Exceptional Model Mining: Telling Where Your Model Performs (Not) Well [31.013018198280506]
  This paper introduces a novel framework, Conformalized Exceptional Model Mining.<n>It combines the rigor of Conformal Prediction with the explanatory power of Exceptional Model Mining.<n>We develop a new model class, mSMoPE, which quantifies uncertainty through conformal prediction's rigorous coverage guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-21T13:43:14Z)
• PerturBench: Benchmarking Machine Learning Models for Cellular Perturbation Analysis [8.785345412061792]
  We introduce a comprehensive framework for modeling single cell transcriptomic responses to perturbations.<n>Our approach includes a modular and user-friendly model development and evaluation platform.<n>We highlight the limitations of widely used models, such as mode collapse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T07:40:20Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Models [95.8037674226622]
  We introduce a 3-dimensional evaluation metric that characterizes the fidelity, diversity and generalization performance of any generative model in a domain-agnostic fashion. Our metric unifies statistical divergence measures with precision-recall analysis, enabling sample- and distribution-level diagnoses of model fidelity and diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-17T18:25:30Z)
• Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels [69.64662540443162]
  We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance. We provide tractable algorithms to compute the range of attainable group-level predictive disparities. We extend our framework to address the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-02T02:11:37Z)

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.