Assessing the quality of LLM-generated text remains a fundamental challenge in natural language processing. Current evaluation approaches often rely on isolated metrics or simplistic aggregations that fail to capture the nuanced trade-offs between coherence, diversity, fluency, and other relevant indicators of text quality. In this work, we adapt a recently proposed framework for statistical inference based on Generalized Stochastic Dominance (GSD) that addresses three critical limitations in existing benchmarking methodologies: the inadequacy of single-metric evaluation, the incompatibility between cardinal automatic metrics and ordinal human judgments, and the lack of inferential statistical guarantees. The GSD-front approach enables simultaneous evaluation across multiple quality dimensions while respecting their different measurement scales, building upon partial orders of decoding strategies, thus avoiding arbitrary weighting of the involved metrics. By applying this framework to evaluate common decoding strategies against human-generated text, we demonstrate its ability to identify statistically significant performance differences while accounting for potential deviations from the i.i.d. assumption of the sampling design.

Given the vast number of classifiers that have been (and continue to be) proposed, reliable methods for comparing them are becoming increasingly important. The desire for reliability is broken down into three main aspects: (1) Comparisons should allow for different quality metrics simultaneously. (2) Comparisons should take into account the statistical uncertainty induced by the choice of benchmark suite. (3) The robustness of the comparisons under small deviations in the underlying assumptions should be verifiable. To address (1), we propose to compare classifiers using a generalized stochastic dominance ordering (GSD) and present the GSD-front as an information-efficient alternative to the classical Pareto-front. For (2), we propose a consistent statistical estimator for the GSD-front and construct a statistical test for whether a (potentially new) classifier lies in the GSD-front of a set of state-of-the-art classifiers. For (3), we relax our proposed test using techniques from robust statistics and imprecise probabilities. We illustrate our concepts on the benchmark suite PMLB and on the platform OpenML.

We propose a framework for descriptively analyzing sets of partial orders based on the concept of depth functions. Despite intensive studies in linear and metric spaces, there is very little discussion on depth functions for non-standard data types such as partial orders. We introduce an adaptation of the well-known simplicial depth to the set of all partial orders, the union-free generic (ufg) depth. Moreover, we utilize our ufg depth for a comparison of machine learning algorithms based on multidimensional performance measures. Concretely, we provide two examples of classifier comparisons on samples of standard benchmark data sets. Our results demonstrate promisingly the wide variety of different analysis approaches based on ufg methods. Furthermore, the examples outline that our approach differs substantially from existing benchmarking approaches, and thus adds a new perspective to the vivid debate on classifier comparison.1

Spaces with locally varying scale of measurement, like multidimensional structures with differently scaled dimensions, are pretty common in statistics and machine learning. Nevertheless, it is still understood as an open question how to exploit the entire information encoded in them properly. We address this problem by considering an order based on (sets of) expectations of random variables mapping into such non-standard spaces. This order contains stochastic dominance and expectation order as extreme cases when no, or respectively perfect, cardinal structure is given. We derive a (regularized) statistical test for our proposed generalized stochastic dominance (GSD) order, operationalize it by linear optimization, and robustify it by imprecise probability models. Our findings are illustrated with data from multidimensional poverty measurement, finance, and medicine.