MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AllMetrics: A Unified Python Library for Standardized Metric Evaluation in Machine Learning

2025· article· W4417471048 on OpenAlexaff
Morteza Alizadeh, Mehrdad Oveisi, Sonya Falahati, Ghazal Mousavi, Mohsen Alambardar Meybodi, Somayeh Sadat Mehrnia, Ilker Hacihaliloglu, Arman Rahmim, Mohammad R. Salmanpour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsTeck (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPython (programming language)StandardizationMetric (unit)DebuggingModular designModular programmingProduct metricPerformance metric

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning (ML) models rely heavily on consistent and accurate performance metrics to evaluate and compare their effectiveness. However, existing libraries often suffer from fragmentation, inconsistent implementations, and insufficient data validation protocols, leading to unreliable results. Existing libraries have often been developed independently and without adherence to a unified standard, particularly concerning the specific tasks they aim to support. As a result, each library tends to adopt its conventions for metric computation, input/output formatting, error handling, and data validation protocols. This lack of standardization leads to inconsistencies in both implementation and reporting, making it difficult to compare results across frameworks or ensure reliable evaluations. To address these issues, we introduce AllMetrics, a unified Python library designed to standardize metric evaluation across diverse ML tasks, including regression, classification, clustering, segmentation, and image-to-image translation. The library implements class-specific reporting for multi-class tasks through configurable parameters (e.g., average='macro'/'micro'/'none') to cover all use cases, while incorporating task-specific parameters (e.g., window_size in structural similarity index measure (SSIM)) to resolve metric computation discrepancies across implementations. Various datasets from domains like healthcare, finance, and real estate were applied to our library and compared with components in Python, Matlab, and R to identify which yield similar results. AllMetrics combines a modular Application Programming Interface (API) with robust input validation mechanisms to ensure reproducibility and reliability in model evaluation. This paper presents its design principles, architectural components, and empirical analysis demonstrating the ability to mitigate evaluation errors and enhance the trustworthiness of ML workflows.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.025

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning and Data ClassificationFrench-language works237,207