Previous research has investigated the potential of refugee matching for boosting refugee outcomes, first considered by Bansak et al. (2018). This paper demonstrates the stability of counterfactual impact evaluation results in the context of refugee matching in the United States using a range of off-policy evaluation methods. In order to estimate counterfactual impact and test the robustness of our results, we employ several evaluation methods, including inverse probability weighting (IPW) and multiple variants of augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW). We also consider various modifications, including alternative modeling architectures and different assignment procedures. The impact estimates remain consistent in magnitude in all scenarios as well as statistically significant in most cases. Furthermore, the estimates are also consistent with the results originally presented in Bansak et al. (2018).

This work studies the evaluation of explaining graph neural networks (GNNs), which is crucial to the credibility of post-hoc explainability in practical usage. Conventional evaluation metrics, and even explanation methods -- which mainly follow the paradigm of feeding the explanatory subgraph to the model and measuring output difference -- mostly suffer from the notorious out-of-distribution (OOD) issue. Hence, in this work, we endeavor to confront this issue by introducing a novel evaluation metric, termed OOD-resistant Adversarial Robustness (OAR). Specifically, we draw inspiration from adversarial robustness and evaluate post-hoc explanation subgraphs by calculating their robustness under attack. On top of that, an elaborate OOD reweighting block is inserted into the pipeline to confine the evaluation process to the original data distribution. For applications involving large datasets, we further devise a Simplified version of OAR (SimOAR), which achieves a significant improvement in computational efficiency at the cost of a small amount of performance.

In Natural Language Processing (NLP), the Elo rating system, originally designed for ranking players in dynamic games such as chess, is increasingly being used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) through A vs B paired comparisons.However, while popular, the system's suitability for assessing entities with constant skill levels, such as LLMs, remains relatively unexplored. We study two fundamental axioms that evaluation methods should adhere to: reliability and transitivity. We conduct an extensive evaluation of Elo behavior across simulated and real-world scenarios, demonstrating that individual Elo computations can exhibit significant volatility.We show that both axioms are not always satisfied, raising questions about the reliability of current comparative evaluations of LLMs.If the current use of Elo scores is intended to substitute the costly head-to-head comparison of LLMs, it is crucial to ensure the ranking is as robust as possible.Guided by the axioms, our findings offer concrete guidelines for enhancing the reliability of LLM evaluation methods, suggesting a need for reassessment of existing comparative approaches.

The significant difference between the deployment-time partners' distribution and the training partners' distribution determined by the

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Our RADIAL-RL agents consistently outperform prior methods when tested against attacks of varying strength and are more computationally efficient to train. In addition, we propose a new evaluation method calledGreedyWorst-Case Reward(GWC) tomeasure attack agnostic robustness of deep RL agents. We show that GWC can be evaluated efficiently and is a good estimate of the reward under the worst possible sequence of adversarial attacks.

The evaluation of generative models has received significant attention in the machine learning community. When applied to a multi-modal distribution which is common among image datasets, an intuitive evaluation criterion is the number of modes captured by the generative model. While several scores have been proposed to evaluate the quality and diversity of a model's generated data, the correspondence between existing scores and the number of modes in the distribution is unclear. In this work, we propose an information-theoretic diversity evaluation method for multi-modal underlying distributions. We utilize the R\'enyi Kernel Entropy (RKE) as an evaluation score based on quantum information theory to measure the number of modes in generated samples.