aiqbench analysis
This research introduces a rigorous evaluation framework for sensor-based AI that accounts for distribution shifts in devices, personnel, and time—factors standard random splits often miss. By anchoring deployment decisions to 5% quantiles rather than mean performance, the protocol effectively guards against silent misdirection toward classes no longer present in the operational environment. The study validates this approach using smartphone classifiers for geomagnetic localization across two underground mines over a 34-month period, demonstrating robustness even with unknown device generations and held-out surveyors.
Accountable and uncertainty-aware evaluation of sensor-based AI under distribution shift: devices, subjects, and nearly three years underground
arXiv:2609.09257v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sensor-based AI systems are rarely operated under the conditions under which they were trained: devices, personnel and recording epochs change, and each change degrades performance in ways a random train-test split cannot reveal. We propose a staged, accountable evaluation protocol that treats the evaluation of a deployed model as a measurement with declared reference levels and a quantified uncertainty. Four cumulative generalisation stages hold out devices, subjects and time. Each stage is judged on quantiles of repeated trainings against chance references with the correct class count, an out-of-present-scope rate exposes silent misdirection towards classes that are no longer present in deployment relative to training, and an explicit decision rule ties roll-out decisions not to means but to 5% quantiles. We demonstrate the protocol on infrastructure-free geomagnetic localisation with smartphone-based recurrent classifiers in two real underground mines, including a replication of the scheme's training stages at the second site. Unchanged models are re-evaluated on data recorded 34 months after the training campaign, on a device generation unknown at training time and with a held-out surveyor. The 5% quantile of their present-conditioned precision there is 0.39 over 299 repeated trainings, 16.5 times the chance level; across the composition of the 42 reachable location classes the figure varies by +/-0.08, several times the spread between repeated runs. Repeated trainings of a single configuration show why means mislead: a bimodal configuration passes a mean-based test decisively while its 5% quantile lies more than an order of magnitude below chance.
Abstract:Sensor-based AI systems are rarely operated under the conditions under which they were trained: devices, personnel and recording epochs change, and each change degrades performance in ways a random train-test split cannot reveal. We propose a staged, accountable evaluation protocol that treats the evaluation of a deployed model as a measurement with declared reference levels and a quantified uncertainty. Four cumulative generalisation stages hold out devices, subjects and time. Each stage is judged on quantiles of repeated trainings against chance references with the correct class count, an out-of-present-scope rate exposes silent misdirection towards classes that are no longer present in deployment relative to training, and an explicit decision rule ties roll-out decisions not to means but to 5% quantiles. We demonstrate the protocol on infrastructure-free geomagnetic localisation with smartphone-based recurrent classifiers in two real underground mines, including a replication of the scheme's training stages at the second site. Unchanged models are re-evaluated on data recorded 34 months after the training campaign, on a device generation unknown at training time and with a held-out surveyor. The 5% quantile of their present-conditioned precision there is 0.39 over 299 repeated trainings, 16.5 times the chance level; across the composition of the 42 reachable location classes the figure varies by +/-0.08, several times the spread between repeated runs. Repeated trainings of a single configuration show why means mislead: a bimodal configuration passes a mean-based test decisively while its 5% quantile lies more than an order of magnitude below chance.
24 pages, 8 figures, 8 tables. Manuscript prepared for Measurement Science and Technology
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Methodology (stat.ME); Machine Learning (stat.ML)
I.5.2; I.2.6; G.3; C.4
arXiv:2609.09257 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.09257v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.09257 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 359 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026

Always ask your agent to be honest
LessWrong · Sep 16, 2026

Implementing and Evaluating a Basic Per-Action Monitor for Safer Evals
METR · Sep 27, 2026
VISTA: An Attention-Based Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Architecture for Space Situational Awareness Sensor Tasking
arXiv · Sep 22, 2026