Optimal unbiased estimators for evaluating agent performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating the performance of an agent or group of agents can be, by itself, a very challenging problem. The stochastic nature of the environment plus the stochastic nature of agents ’ decisions can result in estimates with intractably large variances. This paper examines the problem of finding low variance estimates of agent performance. In particular, we assume that some agent-environment dynamics are known, such as the random outcome of drawing a card or rolling a die. Other dynamics are unknown, such as the reasoning of a human or other black-box agent. Using the known dynamics, we describe the complete set of all unbiased estimators, that is, for any possible unknown dynamics the estimate’s expectation is always the agent’s expected utility. Then, given a belief about the unknown dynamics, we identify the unbiased estimator with minimum variance. If the belief is correct our estimate is optimal, and if the belief is wrong it is at least unbiased. Finally, we apply our unbiased estimator to the game of poker, demonstrating dramatically reduced variance and faster evaluation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it