Evaluating multiple models using labeled and unlabeled data
Divya Shanmugam, Shuvom Sadhuka, Manish Raghavan, John V. Guttag, Bonnie Berger, Emma Pierson
Abstract
It remains difficult to evaluate machine learning classifiers in the absence of a large, labeled dataset. While labeled data can be prohibitively expensive or impossible to obtain, unlabeled data is plentiful. Here, we introduce Semi-Supervised Model Evaluation (SSME), a method that uses both labeled and unlabeled data to evaluate machine learning classifiers. SSME is the first evaluation method to take advantage of the fact that: (i) there are frequently multiple classifiers for the same task, (ii) continuous classifier scores are often available for all classes, and (iii) unlabeled data is often far more plentiful than labeled data. The key idea is to use a semi-supervised mixture model to estimate the joint distribution of ground truth labels and classifier predictions. We can then use this model to estimate any metric that is a function of classifier scores and ground truth labels (e.g., accuracy or expected calibration error). We present experiments in four domains where obtaining large labeled datasets is often impractical: (1) healthcare, (2) content moderation, (3) molecular property prediction, and (4) image annotation. Our results demonstrate that SSME estimates performance more accurately than do competing methods, reducing error by 5.1x relative to using labeled data alone and 2.4x relative to the next best competing method. SSME also improves accuracy when evaluating performance across subsets of the test distribution (e.g., specific demographic subgroups) and when evaluating the performance of language models.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 82d9d953-15e5-4cbd-941c-987a97f50c1dCited by top-tier papers2
- Nonparametric LLM Evaluation from Preference DataDennis Frauen, Athiya Deviyani, Mihaela van der Schaar, Stefan FeuerriegelICML 2026 · 5 citations
- Consensus-Driven Active Model SelectionJustin Kay, Grant Van Horn, Subhransu Maji, Daniel Sheldon et al.ICCV 2025
Builds on28
- Open Graph Benchmark: Datasets for Machine Learning on GraphsWeihua Hu, Matthias Fey, Marinka Zitnik, Yuxiao Dong et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 3,935 citations
- WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution ShiftsPang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Henrik Marklund, Sang Michael Xie et al.ICML 2021 · 1,773 citations
- Accuracy on the Line: on the Strong Correlation Between Out-of-Distribution and In-Distribution GeneralizationJohn Miller, Rohan Taori, Aditi Raghunathan, Shiori Sagawa et al.ICML 2021 · 323 citations
- Leveraging unlabeled data to predict out-of-distribution performanceSaurabh Garg, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, Zachary Chase Lipton, Behnam Neyshabur et al.ICLR 2022 · 160 citations
- Change is Hard: A Closer Look at Subpopulation ShiftYuzhe Yang, Haoran Zhang, Dina Katabi, Marzyeh GhassemiICML 2023 · 149 citations
Related papers
- Systematic comparison of semi-supervised and self-supervised learning for medical image classificationZhe Huang, Ruijie Jiang, Shuchin Aeron, Michael C. HughesCVPR 2024
- What Does Rotation Prediction Tell Us about Classifier Accuracy under Varying Testing Environments?Weijian Deng, Stephen Gould, Liang ZhengICML 2021 · 72 citations
- Are Labels Always Necessary for Classifier Accuracy Evaluation?Weijian Deng, Liang ZhengCVPR 2021
- Semi-Supervised Learning for Molecular Graphs via Ensemble ConsensusRasmus Tirsgaard, Laurits Fredsgaard, Marisa Wodrich, Mikkel Jordahn et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
- Discrepancy Ratio: Evaluating Model Performance When Even Experts Disagree on the TruthIgor Lovchinsky, Alon Daks, Israel Malkin, Pouya Samangouei et al.ICLR 2020 · 11 citations
