  The comparison of benchmark error sets is an essential tool for the
evaluation of theories in computational chemistry. The standard ranking of
methods by their Mean Unsigned Error is unsatisfactory for several reasons
linked to the non-normality of the error distributions and the presence of
underlying trends. Complementary statistics have recently been proposed to
palliate such deficiencies, such as quantiles of the absolute errors
distribution or the mean prediction uncertainty. We introduce here a new score,
the systematic improvement probability (SIP), based on the direct system-wise
comparison of absolute errors. Independently of the chosen scoring rule, the
uncertainty of the statistics due to the incompleteness of the benchmark data
sets is also generally overlooked. However, this uncertainty is essential to
appreciate the robustness of rankings. In the present article, we develop two
indicators based on robust statistics to address this problem: P_{inv}, the
inversion probability between two values of a statistic, and \mathbf{P}_{r},
the ranking probability matrix. We demonstrate also the essential contribution
of the correlations between error sets in these scores comparisons.
