Evaluating the Evaluators: Are Current Few-Shot Learning Benchmarks Fit for Purpose?
Luísa Shimabucoro, Yongshuo Zong, Timothy Hospedales, Henry Gouk
OpenReview ground truth
TL;DR — Episode-wise validation of few-shot learning is not possible with todays learners and validators.
Abstract
Numerous benchmarks for Few-Shot Learning have been proposed in the last decade. However all of these benchmarks focus on performance averaged over many tasks, and the question of how to reliably evaluate and tune models trained for individual tasks in this regime has not been addressed. This paper presents the first investigation into task-level evaluation—a fundamental step when deploying a model. We measure the accuracy of performance estimators in the few-shot setting, consider strategies for model selection, and examine the reasons for the failure of evaluators usually thought of as being robust. We conclude that cross-validation with a low number of folds is the best choice for directly estimating the performance of a model, whereas using bootstrapping or cross validation with a large number of folds is better for model selection purposes. Overall, we find that existing benchmarks for few-shot learning are not designed in such a way that one can get a reliable picture of how effectively methods can be used on individual tasks
Author context
Most prolific author: 6 submissions (credibility 1.00).
No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).
Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.
Ranking trajectory
Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.
Battle history — 34 comparisons
Ranked above opponent in 49% of matchups.
- ▼ lost to TOAST: Transfer Learning via Top-Down Atte… ×4
- ▼ lost to Homeomorphic Model Transformation for Boos… ×4
- ▼ lost to Quick-Tune: Quickly Learning Which Pretrai… ×4
- ▲ beat SlowFormer: Universal Adversarial Patch fo… ×4
- ▼ lost to $\nu$-ensembles: Improving deep ensemble c… ×4
Judge assessments
Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)