analiza aiqbench
This research critically examines evaluation methodologies in tabular learning, revealing that standard semantic ablation techniques often conflate model sensitivity to input changes with actual predictive utility. By distinguishing between these two metrics, the authors demonstrate that many existing studies may be drawing misleading conclusions about the true benefit of semantic knowledge in bridging heterogeneous schemas. This work provides a necessary framework for rigorously validating claims regarding semantic integration in machine learning models.
Beyond Correctness: Evaluating Semantic Knowledge in Cross-Table Transfer
arXiv:2609.34098v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Semantic knowledge is increasingly used to bridge heterogeneous schemas in tabular learning, but how much does that knowledge actually improve prediction? Studies in tabular learning commonly answer this question through semantic ablations that modify or suppress the supplied semantic knowledge. We show that these ablations can lead to misleading conclusions about predictive benefit: poor performance under altered semantics may be taken as evidence that the intended knowledge is beneficial. Across real and controlled experiments, altering semantic content can produce large performance differences even when the model gains little predictive benefit from having that semantic knowledge in the first place. To separate these effects, we distinguish two quantities: content sensitivity and predictive utility. Content sensitivity measures the change in performance when semantic content is altered, whereas predictive utility measures the benefit of the intended semantic knowledge relative to a suitable reference without that knowledge. This distinction motivates an evaluation framework in which the control is chosen according to the question being asked: altered controls assess sensitivity to semantic content, whereas claims that semantic knowledge improves prediction require a suitable reference. Even then, predictive utility is not fixed; it varies across suitable references and decreases when the reference can more easily recover the tested knowledge from other inputs or labeled examples. In a bounded audit of 25 semantic-ablation comparisons across nine studies, only one of 18 explicit predictive-utility claims is paired with a control that clearly isolates the tested semantic contribution. Together, these findings motivate a simple evaluation principle: semantic-ablation controls should be chosen and interpreted according to the question they are intended to answer.
Abstract:Semantic knowledge is increasingly used to bridge heterogeneous schemas in tabular learning, but how much does that knowledge actually improve prediction? Studies in tabular learning commonly answer this question through semantic ablations that modify or suppress the supplied semantic knowledge. We show that these ablations can lead to misleading conclusions about predictive benefit: poor performance under altered semantics may be taken as evidence that the intended knowledge is beneficial. Across real and controlled experiments, altering semantic content can produce large performance differences even when the model gains little predictive benefit from having that semantic knowledge in the first place. To separate these effects, we distinguish two quantities: content sensitivity and predictive utility. Content sensitivity measures the change in performance when semantic content is altered, whereas predictive utility measures the benefit of the intended semantic knowledge relative to a suitable reference without that knowledge. This distinction motivates an evaluation framework in which the control is chosen according to the question being asked: altered controls assess sensitivity to semantic content, whereas claims that semantic knowledge improves prediction require a suitable reference. Even then, predictive utility is not fixed; it varies across suitable references and decreases when the reference can more easily recover the tested knowledge from other inputs or labeled examples. In a bounded audit of 25 semantic-ablation comparisons across nine studies, only one of 18 explicit predictive-utility claims is paired with a control that clearly isolates the tested semantic contribution. Together, these findings motivate a simple evaluation principle: semantic-ablation controls should be chosen and interpreted according to the question they are intended to answer.
40 pages. Seokyong Sheem and Hochang Lee contributed equally. Corresponding author: Daekyum Kim. Code and reproducibility artifacts: this https URL
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.34098 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.34098v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.34098 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 377 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · 12 oct. 2026

Build a multi-account AI agent with AgentCore Gateway and MCP
AWS · 24 sept. 2026
Request, Aggregate, Bypass: How Attackers Can Evade LLM Safety Classifiers
CrowdStrike Blog · 6 oct. 2026

Natera’s intelligent appointment scheduling with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · 26 aug. 2026