Our goal is to evaluate the accuracy of a black-box classification model, not as a single aggregate on a given test data distribution, but as a surface over a large number of combinations of attributes characterizing multiple test data distributions. Such attributed accuracy measures become important as machine learning models get deployed as a service, where the training data distribution is hidden from clients, and different clients may be interested in diverse regions of the data distribution.

Our goal is to evaluate the accuracy of a black-box classification model, not as a single aggregate on a given test data distribution, but as a surface over a large number of combinations of attributes characterizing multiple test data distributions. Such attributed accuracy measures become important as machine learning models get deployed as a service, where the training data distribution is hidden from clients, and different clients may be interested in diverse regions of the data distribution. Each attribute combination, called an'arm' is associated with a Beta density from which the service's accuracy is sampled. We expect the GP to smooth the parameters of the Beta density over related arms to mitigate sparsity. We show that obvious application of GPs cannot address the challenge of heteroscedastic uncertainty over a huge attribute space that is sparsely and unevenly populated.

Recent advances in machine learning have led to increased deployment of black-box classifiers across a wide variety of applications. In many such situations there is a crucial need to assess the performance of these pre-trained models, for instance to ensure sufficient predictive accuracy, or that class probabilities are well-calibrated. Furthermore, since labeled data may be scarce or costly to collect, it is desirable for such assessment be performed in an efficient manner. In this paper, we introduce a Bayesian approach for model assessment that satisfies these desiderata. We develop inference strategies to quantify uncertainty for common assessment metrics (accuracy, misclassification cost, expected calibration error), and propose a framework for active assessment using this uncertainty to guide efficient selection of instances for labeling. We illustrate the benefits of our approach in experiments assessing the performance of modern neural classifiers (e.g., ResNet and BERT) on several standard image and text classification datasets.