arXiv subjects

Michael Alexander Riegler

Publications and source records attributed to Michael Alexander Riegler.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗

arXiv2026

Who Evaluates AI's Social Impacts? Mapping Coverage and Gaps in First and Third Party Evaluations

Foundation models are increasingly central to high-stakes AI systems, and governance frameworks now depend on evaluations to assess their risks and capabilities. Although general capability evaluations are widespread, social impact assessments covering bias, fairness, privacy, environmental costs, and labor remain uneven. To characterize this landscape, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of social impact evaluation reporting, examining 186 first-party release reports and 248 third-party evaluation sources, supplemented by developer interviews. We find a stark division of labor: first-party reporting is sparse, often superficial, and declining in areas like environmental impact and bias, while third-party evaluators provide broader, more rigorous coverage of bias, harmful content, and performance disparities. However, only developers can authoritatively report on data provenance, content moderation labor, costs, and infrastructure, yet interviews reveal these disclosures are deprioritized unless tied to product adoption or compliance. Current practices leave major gaps in assessing societal impacts, underscoring the need for policies that mandate developer transparency, strengthen independent evaluation ecosystems, and create shared infrastructure for aggregating third-party evaluations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Classifying Dry Eye Disease Patients from Healthy Controls Using Machine Learning and Metabolomics Data

Dry eye disease is a common disorder of the ocular surface, leading patients to seek eye care. Clinical signs and symptoms are currently used to diagnose dry eye disease. Metabolomics, a method for analyzing biological systems, has been found helpful in identifying distinct metabolites in patients and in detecting metabolic profiles that may indicate dry eye disease at early stages. In this study, we explored using machine learning and metabolomics information to identify which cataract patients suffered from dry eye disease. As there is no one-size-fits-all machine learning model for metabolomics data, choosing the most suitable model can significantly affect the quality of predictions and subsequent metabolomics analyses. To address this challenge, we conducted a comparative analysis of nine machine learning models on three metabolomics data sets from cataract patients with and without dry eye disease. The models were evaluated and optimized using nested k-fold cross-validation. To assess the performance of these models, we selected a set of suitable evaluation metrics tailored to the data set's challenges. The logistic regression model overall performed the best, achieving the highest area under the curve score of 0.8378, balanced accuracy of 0.735, Matthew's correlation coefficient of 0.5147, an F1-score of 0.8513, and a specificity of 0.5667. Additionally, following the logistic regression, the XGBoost and Random Forest models also demonstrated good performance.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2023

Principal Component Analysis based frameworks for efficient missing data imputation algorithms

Missing data is a commonly occurring problem in practice. Many imputation methods have been developed to fill in the missing entries. However, not all of them can scale to high-dimensional data, especially the multiple imputation techniques. Meanwhile, the data nowadays tends toward high-dimensional. Therefore, in this work, we propose Principal Component Analysis Imputation (PCAI), a simple but versatile framework based on Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to speed up the imputation process and alleviate memory issues of many available imputation techniques, without sacrificing the imputation quality in term of MSE. In addition, the frameworks can be used even when some or all of the missing features are categorical, or when the number of missing features is large. Next, we introduce PCA Imputation - Classification (PIC), an application of PCAI for classification problems with some adjustments. We validate our approach by experiments on various scenarios, which shows that PCAI and PIC can work with various imputation algorithms, including the state-of-the-art ones and improve the imputation speed significantly, while achieving competitive mean square error/classification accuracy compared to direct imputation (i.e., impute directly on the missing data).

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

MMSys'21 Grand Challenge on Detecting Cheapfakes

Cheapfake is a recently coined term that encompasses non-AI ("cheap") manipulations of multimedia content. Cheapfakes are known to be more prevalent than deepfakes. Cheapfake media can be created using editing software for image/video manipulations, or even without using any software, by simply altering the context of an image/video by sharing the media alongside misleading claims. This alteration of context is referred to as out-of-context (OOC) misuse} of media. OOC media is much harder to detect than fake media, since the images and videos are not tampered. In this challenge, we focus on detecting OOC images, and more specifically the misuse of real photographs with conflicting image captions in news items. The aim of this challenge is to develop and benchmark models that can be used to detect whether given samples (news image and associated captions) are OOC, based on the recently compiled COSMOS dataset.

cs.MM↗