Human Feedback Types
strongDemonstrations
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"Performance metrics can yield different conclusions from the same predictions."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Mehmet Baygin, Sengul Dogan, Turker Tuncer
Published
Nov 5, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Moderate
Usefulness score
65/100 (Medium)
Extraction confidence
70% (Moderate)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Nov 5, 2026
This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.
Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.
Best use
Secondary protocol comparison source
Use if you need
A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
No major weakness surfaced.
Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Performance metrics can yield different conclusions from the same predictions. This methodological tutorial explains the effects of class prevalence, decision thresholds, aggregation rules and software conventions through controlled scenarios. Twenty-two confusion-matrix metrics are organized in a prevalence-coded map. Fifteen scenarios cover binary and multi-class classification, score discrimination, probability calibration, regression, uncertainty and consistency checks. Inputs are fixed in released files, and one factor is varied in each scenario. All 205 verification checks passed; 202 were independent and 3 were internal. An always-negative rule achieved an accuracy of 0.990 at a prevalence of 0.010, with balanced accuracy of 0.500. At fixed sensitivity and specificity, precision fell from 0.889 to 0.008 as prevalence fell from 0.5 to 0.001. Three probability variants shared a ROC-AUC of 0.825 but had calibration slopes of 2.08, 1.04 and 0.52. With 10 participants, participant-majority accuracy of 0.700 had a 95% interval of 0.348-0.933. Fold-averaged scores were falsely flagged as inconsistent under an inappropriate pooled-test-set model. A goal-based metric table and a reporting checklist are provided. The scenarios illustrate mechanisms and do not estimate their frequency in published studies. A literature audit and a real-data demonstration are specified as future protocols and were not executed.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
Demonstrations
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"Performance metrics can yield different conclusions from the same predictions."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Performance metrics can yield different conclusions from the same predictions."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Performance metrics can yield different conclusions from the same predictions."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Performance metrics can yield different conclusions from the same predictions."
Accuracy, Auroc
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"An always-negative rule achieved an accuracy of 0.990 at a prevalence of 0.010, with balanced accuracy of 0.500."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
Performance metrics can yield different conclusions from the same predictions.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
Detected: Demonstrations
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Automatic Metrics
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
Detected: accuracy, auroc