arXiv:2606. 03305v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmark contamination, where evaluation examples appear in a model's training data, threatens the validity of LLM assessment.
By Wojciech Zarzecki, Jan Dubi\'nski, Sebastian Cygert
arXiv:2604. 08870v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Student dropout is a persistent concern in Learning Analytics, yet comparative studies frequently evaluate predictive models under heterogeneous protocols, prioritizing discrimination over temporal interpretability and calibration.
By Rafael da Silva, Jeff Eicher, Gregory Longo
arXiv:2607. 10633v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Explainable machine learning (XML) pipelines applied to composite mental health outcomes can produce apparently-robust, cross-population-stable risk hierarchies that are largely artefacts of how the outcome was constructed.
By Alireza Dehghan, Negin Ashrafi
The paper introduces Counterfactual Fragility Certificates (CFC), a model‑agnostic audit protocol that maps each prediction to an evidence‑failure trajectory, summarizing it with metrics such as greedy flip budget, margin‑collapse area, degradation thresholds, and fragility dominance score. CFC is shown to identify brittle high‑confidence predictions on seven tabular benchmarks with an AUROC of 0.915, outperforming existing scalar scores by up to +0.405. The method remains effective across various perturbation and review‑budget scenarios, and can also inform fragility‑aware regularization and temperature correction.
By Filippo Cenacchi, Longbing Cao, Runze Yang
arXiv:2607. 16122v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluations should do more than measure a models current performance.
By Vipul Gupta, Zihao Wang, Razvan-Gabriel Dumitru, MohammadHossein Rezaei, Aakash Sabharwal, Yunzhong He
arXiv:2608. 00794v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Agentic AI evaluation pipelines produce benchmark scores that justify deployment decisions, safety certifications, and regulatory compliance claims.
By William Caban