scripts/evaluate_belgium_building_candidate.py freezes its post-processing
before the protected test — NMS IoU and a containment threshold selected during
calibration, defaulting to 1.0. The runtime applied a hardcoded 0.85, so a
promoted candidate was served under suppression its evaluation never measured
and dropped detections the gate had counted. Neither report showed the
difference. That constant was mine, added without noticing the evaluation
pipeline already had a tuned value for the same concept.
Containment is now configuration, recorded on every run beside the duplicate
IoU threshold, so an operator can serve a candidate at the value it was gated
at and afterwards see which value produced a given score.
Two runs that post-processed differently produced different candidate sets from
the same model output, so the comparison endpoint refuses to rank them. Runs
recorded before those values were persisted carry none, and absence is not
treated as a difference.
The remaining gap is deliberate and documented rather than closed: the gate
scores the model on its protected test set, the workbench scores the whole
pipeline including coverage clipping and the tile-edge filter. A promoted
candidate will not reproduce its gate F1 exactly, and pretending otherwise
would be the worse answer.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The workbench ranks model variants by a stored F1, each measured at that
variant's own confidence threshold. A conservatively calibrated detector then
looks worse than a liberal one without detecting anything differently: the
number says as much about the threshold as about the model. POST
/detection/runs/compare ranks on average precision instead, which describes the
whole ranking a model produced, and keeps each run's own-threshold F1 visible
next to it so the difference between the two readings is auditable.
Comparability comes before the ranking. Runs over different source rasters,
scored against different references, without a proven inference footprint, or
covering a different evaluated population are not alternatives to one another,
and no metric makes them so. The report names which of those applies and still
returns the numbers — they are simply not a ranking.
Each run is scored through the same QA path the workbench uses, so a comparison
and the persisted quality checks cannot drift apart.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
