ZooD then continues with model aggregation consisting ofmodel ensemble andfeature selection.

The performance of algorithms, methods, and models tends to depend heavily on the distribution of cases on which they are applied, this distribution being specific to the applicative domain. After performing an evaluation in several domains, it is highly informative to compute a (weighted) mean performance and, as shown in this paper, to scrutinize what happens during this averaging. To achieve this goal, we adopt a probabilistic framework and consider a performance as a probability measure (e.g., a normalized confusion matrix for a classification task). It appears that the corresponding weighted mean is known to be the summarization, and that only some remarkable scores assign to the summarized performance a value equal to a weighted arithmetic mean of the values assigned to the domain-specific performances. These scores include the family of ranking scores, a continuum parameterized by user preferences, and that the weights to consider in the arithmetic mean depend on the user preferences. Based on this, we rigorously define four domains, named easiest, most difficult, preponderant, and bottleneck domains, as functions of user preferences. After establishing the theory in a general setting, regardless of the task, we develop new visual tools for two-class classification.

Generative adversarial networks (GANs) have great successes on synthesizing data.

Detecting hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) remains a critical challenge for their reliable deployment in real-world applications. To address this, we introduce SelfCheckAgent, a novel framework integrating three different agents: the Symbolic Agent, the Specialized Detection Agent, and the Contextual Consistency Agent. These agents provide a robust multi-dimensional approach to hallucination detection. Notable results include the Contextual Consistency Agent leveraging Llama 3.1 with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) to achieve outstanding performance on the WikiBio dataset, with NonFactual hallucination detection scoring 93.64%, Factual 70.26%, and Ranking 78.48% respectively. On the AIME dataset, GPT-4o with CoT excels in NonFactual detection with 94.89% but reveals trade-offs in Factual with 30.58% and Ranking with 30.68%, underscoring the complexity of hallucination detection in the complex mathematical domains. The framework also incorporates a triangulation strategy, which increases the strengths of the SelfCheckAgent, yielding significant improvements in real-world hallucination identification. The comparative analysis demonstrates SelfCheckAgent's applicability across diverse domains, positioning it as a crucial advancement for trustworthy LLMs. These findings highlight the potentiality of consistency-driven methodologies in detecting hallucinations in LLMs.

Ranking entities such as algorithms, devices, methods, or models based on their performances, while accounting for application-specific preferences, is a challenge. To address this challenge, we establish the foundations of a universal theory for performance-based ranking. First, we introduce a rigorous framework built on top of both the probability and order theories. Our new framework encompasses the elements necessary to (1) manipulate performances as mathematical objects, (2) express which performances are worse than or equivalent to others, (3) model tasks through a variable called satisfaction, (4) consider properties of the evaluation, (5) define scores, and (6) specify application-specific preferences through a variable called importance. On top of this framework, we propose the first axiomatic definition of performance orderings and performance-based rankings. Then, we introduce a universal parametric family of scores, called ranking scores, that can be used to establish rankings satisfying our axioms, while considering application-specific preferences. Finally, we show, in the case of two-class classification, that the family of ranking scores encompasses well-known performance scores, including the accuracy, the true positive rate (recall, sensitivity), the true negative rate (specificity), the positive predictive value (precision), and F1. However, we also show that some other scores commonly used to compare classifiers are unsuitable to derive performance orderings satisfying the axioms. Therefore, this paper provides the computer vision and machine learning communities with a rigorous framework for evaluating and ranking entities.

Properly understanding the performances of classifiers is essential in various scenarios. However, the literature often relies only on one or two standard scores to compare classifiers, which fails to capture the nuances of application-specific requirements, potentially leading to suboptimal classifier selection. Recently, a paper on the foundations of the theory of performance-based ranking introduced a tool, called the Tile, that organizes an infinity of ranking scores into a 2D map. Thanks to the Tile, it is now possible to evaluate and compare classifiers efficiently, displaying all possible application-specific preferences instead of having to rely on a pair of scores. In this paper, we provide a first hitchhiker's guide for understanding the performances of two-class classifiers by presenting four scenarios, each showcasing a different user profile: a theoretical analyst, a method designer, a benchmarker, and an application developer. Particularly, we show that we can provide different interpretative flavors that are adapted to the user's needs by mapping different values on the Tile. As an illustration, we leverage the newly introduced Tile tool and the different flavors to rank and analyze the performances of 74 state-of-the-art semantic segmentation models in two-class classification through the eyes of the four user profiles. Through these user profiles, we demonstrate that the Tile effectively captures the behavior of classifiers in a single visualization, while accommodating an infinite number of ranking scores.

In the computer vision and machine learning communities, as well as in many other research domains, rigorous evaluation of any new method, including classifiers, is essential. One key component of the evaluation process is the ability to compare and rank methods. However, ranking classifiers and accurately comparing their performances, especially when taking application-specific preferences into account, remains challenging. For instance, commonly used evaluation tools like Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) and Precision/Recall (PR) spaces display performances based on two scores. Hence, they are inherently limited in their ability to compare classifiers across a broader range of scores and lack the capability to establish a clear ranking among classifiers. In this paper, we present a novel versatile tool, named the Tile, that organizes an infinity of ranking scores in a single 2D map for two-class classifiers, including common evaluation scores such as the accuracy, the true positive rate, the positive predictive value, Jaccard's coefficient, and all F-beta scores. Furthermore, we study the properties of the underlying ranking scores, such as the influence of the priors or the correspondences with the ROC space, and depict how to characterize any other score by comparing them to the Tile. Overall, we demonstrate that the Tile is a powerful tool that effectively captures all the rankings in a single visualization and allows interpreting them.

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

Information retrieval (IR) systems have played a vital role in modern digital life and have cemented their continued usefulness in this new era of generative AI via retrieval-augmented generation. With strong language processing capabilities and remarkable versatility, large language models (LLMs) have become popular choices for zero-shot re-ranking in IR systems. So far, LLM-based re-ranking methods rely on strong generative capabilities, which restricts their use to either specialized or powerful proprietary models. Given these restrictions, we ask: is autoregressive generation necessary and optimal for LLMs to perform re-ranking? We hypothesize that there are abundant signals relevant to re-ranking within LLMs that might not be used to their full potential via generation. To more directly leverage such signals, we propose in-context re-ranking (ICR), a novel method that leverages the change in attention pattern caused by the search query for accurate and efficient re-ranking. To mitigate the intrinsic biases in LLMs, we propose a calibration method using a content-free query. Due to the absence of generation, ICR only requires two ($O(1)$) forward passes to re-rank $N$ documents, making it substantially more efficient than generative re-ranking methods that require at least $O(N)$ forward passes. Our novel design also enables ICR to be applied to any LLM without specialized training while guaranteeing a well-formed ranking. Extensive experiments with two popular open-weight LLMs on standard single-hop and multi-hop information retrieval benchmarks show that ICR outperforms RankGPT while cutting the latency by more than 60% in practice. Through detailed analyses, we show that ICR's performance is specially strong on tasks that require more complex re-ranking signals. Our findings call for further exploration on novel ways of utilizing open-weight LLMs beyond text generation.

Efficiently allocating treatments with a budget constraint constitutes an important challenge across various domains. In marketing, for example, the use of promotions to target potential customers and boost conversions is limited by the available budget. While much research focuses on estimating causal effects, there is relatively limited work on learning to allocate treatments while considering the operational context. Existing methods for uplift modeling or causal inference primarily estimate treatment effects, without considering how this relates to a profit maximizing allocation policy that respects budget constraints. The potential downside of using these methods is that the resulting predictive model is not aligned with the operational context. Therefore, prediction errors are propagated to the optimization of the budget allocation problem, subsequently leading to a suboptimal allocation policy. We propose an alternative approach based on learning to rank. Our proposed methodology directly learns an allocation policy by prioritizing instances in terms of their incremental profit. We propose an efficient sampling procedure for the optimization of the ranking model to scale our methodology to large-scale data sets. Theoretically, we show how learning to rank can maximize the area under a policy's incremental profit curve. Empirically, we validate our methodology and show its effectiveness in practice through a series of experiments on both synthetic and real-world data.