Aliai Eusebi

Aliai Eusebi, Alexander Herzog, Xiaoyu Liang et al.

The maximum softmax probability (MSP) represents a default approach when evaluating uncertainty quantification for language model generation with structured output. Although cheap, it is often miscalibrated. Methods that probe the model's internal activations feed raw hidden states into opaque classifiers, reading activations as static snapshots and leaving implicit the layer-wise trajectory by which a representation is formed. Yet, similar endpoints can arise from very different paths, and how evidence accumulates, reinforces, or reverses across depth might reveal uncertainty that final probabilities obscure. We extract eleven scale-invariant geometric features, tracing the cumulative path of per-layer MLP updates, and feed them to a sparse linear probe. The probe outperforms MSP under selective abstention, with gains scaling with baseline miscalibration up to 21 AURC points. Because every feature has a closed-form geometric meaning, the probe's coefficients trace how and where along depth errors take shape -- which layers commit prematurely, which contradict the running state, where trajectories drift away from their endpoint.

Alexander Herzog, Aliai Eusebi, Lorenzo Cavallaro

The performance figures of modern drift-adaptive malware classifiers appear promising, but does this translate to genuine operational reliability? The standard evaluation paradigm primarily focuses on baseline performance metrics, neglecting confidence-error alignment and operational stability. While TESSERACT established the importance of temporal evaluation, we take a complementary direction by investigating whether malware classifiers maintain reliable and stable confidence estimates under distribution shifts and exploring the tensions between scientific advancement and practical impacts when they do not. We propose AURORA, a framework to evaluate malware classifiers based on their confidence quality and operational resilience. AURORA subjects the confidence profile of a given model to verification to assess the reliability of its estimates. Unreliable confidence estimates erode operational trust, waste valuable annotation budget on non-informative samples for active learning, and leave error-prone instances undetected in selective classification. AURORA is complemented by a set of metrics designed to go beyond point-in-time performance, striving towards a more holistic assessment of operational stability throughout temporal evaluation periods. The fragility in SOTA frameworks across datasets of varying drift suggests the need for a return to the whiteboard.