arXiv subjects

Damian Stachura

Publications and source records attributed to Damian Stachura.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Every Eval Ever: A Unifying Schema and Community Repository for AI Evaluation Results

AI evaluations are widely used for testing and understanding progress. However, the diverse evaluators bring with them inconsistencies that challenge analysis and comparison. First, results are saved in incompatible formats, scattered across leaderboards, papers, blog posts, evaluation harness logs, and custom repositories. Second, results are created by different evaluation frameworks, which produce divergent scores for nominally identical evaluations and record metadata inconsistently, hindering comparison, cross-community evaluation science, cost reduction, and reuse. We introduce Every Eval Ever, the first shared schema and community-crowdsourced repository for AI evaluation results. The schema standardizes how evaluations are represented in a unified, single JSON document. It is source-agnostic by design, ingesting results from evaluation harnesses and papers alike, and optionally stores per-instance outputs for fine-grained analysis. We contribute: (i) a community-governed metadata schema with a companion instance-level schema, the first standardization effort of its kind; (ii) automatic converters from popular formats, evaluation harnesses, and leaderboards to the unified schema; and (iii) a crowdsourced community database hosted on Hugging Face, currently spanning to date 22,235 models, 2,273 unique benchmarks, and 31 evaluation formats.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Evaluation Cards: An Interpretive Layer for AI Evaluation Reporting

AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present \EvalCards{}, an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies \EvalCards{} across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Are Smaller Open-Weight LLMs Closing the Gap to Proprietary Models for Biomedical Question Answering?

Open-weight versions of large language models (LLMs) are rapidly advancing, with state-of-the-art models like DeepSeek-V3 now performing comparably to proprietary LLMs. This progression raises the question of whether small open-weight LLMs are capable of effectively replacing larger closed-source models. We are particularly interested in the context of biomedical question-answering, a domain we explored by participating in Task 13B Phase B of the BioASQ challenge. In this work, we compare several open-weight models against top-performing systems such as GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet. To enhance question answering capabilities, we use various techniques including retrieving the most relevant snippets based on embedding distance, in-context learning, and structured outputs. For certain submissions, we utilize ensemble approaches to leverage the diverse outputs generated by different models for exact-answer questions. Our results demonstrate that open-weight LLMs are comparable to proprietary ones. In some instances, open-weight LLMs even surpassed their closed counterparts, particularly when ensembling strategies were applied. All code is publicly available at https://github.com/evidenceprime/BioASQ-13b.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Fast and Precise: Adjusting Planning Horizon with Adaptive Subgoal Search

Complex reasoning problems contain states that vary in the computational cost required to determine a good action plan. Taking advantage of this property, we propose Adaptive Subgoal Search (AdaSubS), a search method that adaptively adjusts the planning horizon. To this end, AdaSubS generates diverse sets of subgoals at different distances. A verification mechanism is employed to filter out unreachable subgoals swiftly, allowing to focus on feasible further subgoals. In this way, AdaSubS benefits from the efficiency of planning with longer subgoals and the fine control with the shorter ones, and thus scales well to difficult planning problems. We show that AdaSubS significantly surpasses hierarchical planning algorithms on three complex reasoning tasks: Sokoban, the Rubik's Cube, and inequality proving benchmark INT.

cs.AI↗