Fullsend

Appearance

26. Statistical significance for non-deterministic evals ​

Relates to: fullsend-ai/fullsend#2460 · testing-agents.md open question #1 · 0016-promptfoo-eval · 0006-code-agent-evaluation

Hypothesis ​

A small, dependency-free statistical layer can supply the "threshold wrapper" that promptfoo-eval flagged as missing, and — applied to the conclusions in code-agent-evaluation — will show that comparisons reported as "within noise" or "statistically equivalent" were underpowered at the trial counts used: the experiment could not have detected those differences either way.

Background ​

Two existing experiments establish the gap:

  • promptfoo-eval — "For statistical thresholds ('pass if 90% succeed'), you need a script that parses the JSON output and computes the pass rate. This is ~20 lines of code but it's custom." and "The real non-determinism test requires temperature>0 and statistical thresholds, which we didn't exercise."
  • code-agent-evaluation — draws conclusions in statistical language ("within noise for 60 trials", "statistically equivalent", "small sample size (6 trials)… suggestive, not conclusive") without a significance test or power analysis behind them.

Neither ships a reusable utility, and neither answers the underlying question: how many noisy trials do you need before an eval delta is a real signal?

Method ​

  1. Build significance.py (standard library only):
    • Binary gates: Wilson score interval + a threshold_test that gates on the lower confidence bound.
    • Continuous judge scores: percentile bootstrap_ci + compare_means (bootstrap difference-of-means), which doubles as the mutation kill/survive decision rule.
    • Planning: min_trials_for_proportion / min_trials_for_mean — given a target effect, α and power, the trials/arm required.
  2. Ship threshold_check.py — a CI-pluggable CLI that parses promptfoo results JSON and exits 0/1 against a statistical threshold.
  3. Re-examine code-agent-evaluation's conclusions at its stated trial counts and produce sizing tables across a plausible σ range (raw per-trial scores are not published, so σ is spanned, not assumed).

Deliverables ​

FileWhat it is
significance.pyWilson/bootstrap CIs, compare_means, min-trials calculators. Stdlib only.
threshold_check.pyCLI: promptfoo JSON → pass/fail against a statistical threshold.
test_significance.py24 unit tests, incl. the four triage requested on #2460. python -m unittest.
fixtures/promptfoo_sample.json19/20 sample results for the CLI test.
RECOMMENDATION.mdThe power tables, the re-examination, and recommended defaults.

Results ​

  • The four triage-requested checks pass, including min_trials_for_proportion(0.95, 0.10) == 141 (trials/arm to detect a 10-point drop from a 95% baseline at α=0.05, power=0.80).
  • The gating point is concrete: 19/20 (95%) fails a 90% target — its 95% CI is [76.4%, 99.1%] — while 190/200 at the same rate passes. Same rate, opposite verdict.
  • A power lens on code-agent-evaluation: the "V8 ≈ V5/V7" comparison rests on a ~0.04 judge-score delta at 3 trials/cell. Across any plausible judge noise (σ ∈ [0.1, 1.0] → ~100 to ~9,800 trials/arm), that is underpowered — by an amount we can't pin, since raw per-trial scores aren't published and their design is paired-by-scenario while our calculator is unpaired (so our figures are an upper bound). Their hedged language ("within noise," "suggestive") is correct; only "statistically equivalent" reaches past the data, since non-detection isn't equivalence. Full treatment in RECOMMENDATION.md.

How to run ​

bash
cd 0026-eval-statistical-significance
python -m unittest -v                                   # 24 tests, no install
python threshold_check.py fixtures/promptfoo_sample.json --target 0.90  # -> FAIL, exit 1
python threshold_check.py fixtures/promptfoo_sample.json --target 0.70  # -> PASS, exit 0

Limitations ​

  • No raw per-trial data published, so judge-score variance is spanned across σ ∈ {0.3, 0.5, 0.8} rather than measured. The power statements ("could not have detected 0.04 at 3 trials") hold across that whole range; only the exact trial counts move with σ. The harness ingests real logs unchanged if they surface.
  • Scope is single-cell and pairwise. Multiple-comparison correction across the full scenario×variant grid is noted as follow-up, not built here.
  • Bootstrap/coverage tests are seeded for determinism; they assert coverage bands, not exact values.

Follow-on ​

This is step 1. A mutation harness (the muteval approach) is the documented next step — it needs compare_means to decide killed vs. survived on a noisy eval. Tracked separately, not in this experiment.

Content