Abstract--Robotic grippers are increasingly deployed across industrial, collaborative, and aerial platforms, where each embodiment imposes distinct mechanical, energetic, and operational constraints. Established YCB and NIST benchmarks quantify grasp success, force, or timing on a single platform, but do not evaluate cross-embodiment transferability or energy-aware performance, capabilities essential for modern mobile and aerial manipulation. This letter introduces the Cross-Embodiment Gripper Benchmark (CEGB), a compact and reproducible benchmarking suite extending YCB and selected NIST metrics with three additional components: a transfer-time benchmark measuring the practical effort required to exchange embodiments, an energy-consumption benchmark evaluating grasping and holding efficiency, and an intent-specific ideal payload assessment reflecting design-dependent operational capability. T ogether, these metrics characterize both grasp performance and the suitability of reusing a single gripper across heterogeneous robotic systems. A lightweight self-locking gripper prototype is implemented as a reference case. Experiments demonstrate rapid embodiment transfer (median 17.6 s across user groups), low holding energy for gripper prototype ( 1.5 J per 10 s), and consistent grasp performance with cycle times of 3.2-3.9 CEGB thus provides a reproducible foundation for cross-platform, energy-aware evaluation of grippers in aerial and manipulators domains. Robotic grasping has been extensively investigated across industrial, collaborative, and aerial domains.

Recent machine learning papers often report 1-2 percentage point improvements from a single run on a benchmark. These gains are highly sensitive to random seeds, data ordering, and implementation details, yet are rarely accompanied by uncertainty estimates or significance tests. It is therefore unclear when a reported +1-2% reflects a real algorithmic advance versus noise. We revisit this problem under realistic compute budgets, where only a few runs are affordable. We propose a simple, PC-friendly evaluation protocol based on paired multi-seed runs, bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap confidence intervals, and a sign-flip permutation test on per-seed deltas. The protocol is intentionally conservative and is meant as a guardrail against over-claiming. We instantiate it on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-10N, and AG News using synthetic no-improvement, small-gain, and medium-gain scenarios. Single runs and unpaired t-tests often suggest significant gains for 0.6-2.0 point improvements, especially on text. With only three seeds, our paired protocol never declares significance in these settings. We argue that such conservative evaluation is a safer default for small gains under tight budgets.

We consider the problem of estimating a causal effect in a multi-domain setting. The causal effect of interest is confounded by an unobserved confounder and can change between the different domains. We assume that we have access to a proxy of the hidden confounder and that all variables are discrete or categorical. We propose methodology to estimate the causal effect in the target domain, where we assume to observe only the proxy variable. Under these conditions, we prove identifiability (even when treatment and response variables are continuous). We introduce two estimation techniques, prove consistency, and derive confidence intervals. The theoretical results are supported by simulation studies and a real-world example studying the causal effect of website rankings on consumer choices.

Future self-adaptive robots are expected to operate in highly dynamic environments while effectively managing uncertainties. However, identifying the sources and impacts of uncertainties in such robotic systems and defining appropriate mitigation strategies is challenging due to the inherent complexity of self-adaptive robots and the lack of comprehensive knowledge about the various factors influencing uncertainty. Hence, practitioners often rely on intuition and past experiences from similar systems to address uncertainties. In this article, we evaluate the potential of large language models (LLMs) in enabling a systematic and automated approach to identify uncertainties in self-adaptive robotics throughout the software engineering lifecycle. For this evaluation, we analyzed 10 advanced LLMs with varying capabilities across four industrial-sized robotics case studies, gathering the practitioners' perspectives on the LLM-generated responses related to uncertainties. Results showed that practitioners agreed with 63-88% of the LLM responses and expressed strong interest in the practicality of LLMs for this purpose.

Micro-benchmarking offers a solution to the often prohibitive time and cost of language model development: evaluate on a very small subset of existing benchmarks. Can these micro-benchmarks, however, rank models as consistently as the full benchmarks they replace? And can they rank models more consistently than selecting a random subset of data points? In many scenarios, we find that the answer is no. We introduce a meta-evaluation measure for micro-benchmarking which investigates how well a micro-benchmark can rank two models as a function of their performance difference on the full benchmark. This approach can determine which model pairs can be ranked correctly by a micro-benchmark, allowing for a finer-grained analysis of the trade-off between micro-benchmark size and reliability. Prior work has suggested selecting as few as 10 examples; we find that no micro-benchmarking method can consistently rank model pairs 3.5 points of accuracy apart on MMLU-Pro or 4 points apart on BIG-bench Hard. In order to consistently rank model pairs with relatively similar performances, we show that often as many as 250 examples must be selected, at which point random sampling is competitive with existing micro-benchmarking methods. When comparing only 8B instruction-tuned models on MMLU-Pro micro-benchmarks with 25 examples, we find that more than half of pairwise comparisons are not likely to be preserved. Our work provides actionable guidance for both micro-benchmark users and developers in navigating the trade-off between evaluation efficiency and reliability.

Reliable evaluation is a central challenge in machine learning when tasks lack ground truth labels or involve ambiguity and noise. Conventional frameworks, rooted in the Cranfield paradigm and label-based metrics, fail in such cases because they cannot assess how robustly a system performs under uncertain interpretations. We introduce VB-Score, a variance-bounded evaluation framework that measures both effectiveness and robustness without requiring ground truth. Given a query or input, VB-Score enumerates plausible interpretations, assigns probabilities, and evaluates output by expected success penalized by variance, rewarding consistent performance across intents. We provide a formal analysis of VB-Score, establishing range, monotonicity, and stability properties, and relate it to risk-sensitive measures such as mean-variance utility. Experiments on ambiguous queries and entity-centric retrieval tasks show that VB-Score surfaces robustness differences hidden by conventional metrics. By enabling reproducible, label-free evaluation, VB-Score offers a principled foundation for benchmarking machine learning systems in ambiguous or label-scarce domains.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) demonstrate remarkable fluency in understanding visual scenes, yet they exhibit a critical lack in a fundamental cognitive skill: object counting. This blind spot severely limits their reliability in real-world applications. To date, this capability has been largely unevaluated in complex scenarios, as existing benchmarks either feature sparse object densities or are confined to specific visual domains, failing to test models under realistic conditions. Addressing this gap, we introduce CountQA, a challenging new benchmark designed to probe this deficiency. Comprising over 1,500 question-answer pairs, CountQA features real-world images with high object density, clutter, and occlusion. We investigate this weakness by evaluating 15 prominent MLLMs on the CountQA benchmark and reveal that the top-performing model achieves a mere 42.9% accuracy, with performance declining as object counts rise. By providing a dedicated benchmark to diagnose and rectify this core weakness, CountQA paves the way for a new generation of MLLMs that are not only descriptively fluent but also numerically grounded and spatially aware. We will open-source the dataset and code upon paper acceptance to foster further research.

Unlike classification, whose goal is to estimate the class of each data point in a dataset, prevalence estimation or quantification is a task that aims to estimate the distribution of classes in a dataset. The two main tasks in prevalence estimation are to adjust for bias, due to the prevalence in the training dataset, and to quantify the uncertainty in the estimate. The standard methods used to quantify uncertainty in prevalence estimates are bootstrapping and Bayesian quantification methods. It is not clear which approach is ideal in terms of precision (i.e. the width of confidence intervals) and coverage (i.e. the confidence intervals being well-calibrated). Here, we propose Precise Quantifier (PQ), a Bayesian quantifier that is more precise than existing quantifiers and with well-calibrated coverage. We discuss the theory behind PQ and present experiments based on simulated and real-world datasets. Through these experiments, we establish the factors which influence quantification precision: the discriminatory power of the underlying classifier; the size of the labeled dataset used to train the quantifier; and the size of the unlabeled dataset for which prevalence is estimated. Our analysis provides deep insights into uncertainty quantification for quantification learning.