analiza aiqbench
This paper introduces a rigorous statistical protocol for certifying practical equivalence between machine learning training methods, addressing the common pitfall of relying on insufficient run counts (e.g., two or three seeds). By modeling variance at both seed and item levels, it provides closed-form formulas to determine the necessary number of runs for a target power level, significantly improving experimental design reliability.
Equivalence testing and run-count design for stochastic machine-learning experiments
arXiv:2610.23700v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Claims that two training methods perform equally well often rest on a non-significant difference between two or three runs per method. We develop a protocol, with its power theory, for certifying practical equivalence in per-run metrics such as the AUROC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve). It rests on a two-level (seed x item) variance model separating between-run dispersion from item-level noise. Equivalence within a pre-specified margin is tested by two one-sided tests (TOST), equivalently by a confidence interval inside the margin; a two-level bootstrap covers composite statistics. A closed-form formula converts a margin and a target power into runs per method; its shifted-t refinement is calibrated against the realised two-level process. Simulations on a 270-cell grid and under non-Gaussian seed laws confirm the formula within its design-relevant range, from five runs per method. For four published runs of a joint energy-based model, the failure to certify equivalence was largely decided by design: with the variance calibrated to those runs, two per method certify with probability near three per cent, whereas certifying 0.01 AUROC at 80 per cent power needs twelve even under exact equality. A second case study on a thousand-seed CIFAR-10 zoo and the MultiBERTs checks the formula against real seed laws (within 0.05 in that range) and resolves comparisons that two or three runs leave undecided. In a two-stage design (pilot, then formula), our experiments suggest that an upper confidence bound on the pilot variance substantially reduces the undersizing seen with its point estimate.
Abstract:Claims that two training methods perform equally well often rest on a non-significant difference between two or three runs per method. We develop a protocol, with its power theory, for certifying practical equivalence in per-run metrics such as the AUROC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve). It rests on a two-level (seed x item) variance model separating between-run dispersion from item-level noise. Equivalence within a pre-specified margin is tested by two one-sided tests (TOST), equivalently by a confidence interval inside the margin; a two-level bootstrap covers composite statistics. A closed-form formula converts a margin and a target power into runs per method; its shifted-t refinement is calibrated against the realised two-level process. Simulations on a 270-cell grid and under non-Gaussian seed laws confirm the formula within its design-relevant range, from five runs per method. For four published runs of a joint energy-based model, the failure to certify equivalence was largely decided by design: with the variance calibrated to those runs, two per method certify with probability near three per cent, whereas certifying 0.01 AUROC at 80 per cent power needs twelve even under exact equality. A second case study on a thousand-seed CIFAR-10 zoo and the MultiBERTs checks the formula against real seed laws (within 0.05 in that range) and resolves comparisons that two or three runs leave undecided. In a two-stage design (pilot, then formula), our experiments suggest that an upper confidence bound on the pilot variance substantially reduces the undersizing seen with its point estimate.
31 pages, 4 figures, 4 tables. Code, simulation scripts and case-study data: this https URL (release v0.2.0, archived at this https URL)
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Machine Learning (stat.ML)
arXiv:2610.23700 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.23700v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.23700 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 367 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Building and evaluating model diffing agents
AI Alignment Forum · 12 iun. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026

Lattice-Based Cryptography Explained
Quantum Zeitgeist · 15 aug. 2026
Biological Superintelligence
LessWrong · 30 iul. 2026