Comparación de evaluaciones pareadas
Compara dos sistemas en los mismos ejemplos con un intervalo bootstrap reproducible.
Study guide & lesson outline
LEARNING CONTRACTUnderstand → implement → investigate
Goal: explain the mechanism in this lesson, reproduce one example and test a failure case. Reading alone does not mark mastery.
- Understand: state assumptions, shapes/units and a counterexample.
- Implement: reproduce a numerical example and inspect boundaries.
- Investigate: compare one alternative under a matched budget.
01Configurar
02Añadir entrada
Configura los parámetros, carga un ejemplo o pega tus datos.
03Revisar resultados
Configura los parámetros, carga un ejemplo o pega tus datos.
La vista puede estar truncada; el JSON exportado incluye todos los resultados calculados.
Cómo interpretar los resultados
CSV: id,a,b. IDs únicos y no vacíos; puntuaciones numéricas finitas. Cada fila debe ser el mismo ejemplo para ambos sistemas. Se remuestrean diferencias pareadas 2.000 veces con semilla fija para un intervalo percentil del 95% de la media B−A. Asume filas independientes; datos agrupados requieren otro análisis. No certifica significación ni potencia estadística. Máximo: 5.000 pares.
Referencias del método
Assumptions, implementation & acceptance
Resample paired independent seed/run means, not correlated rows from one run. Percentile bootstrap is not a causal claim or a p-value; a degenerate fixture can produce a zero-width interval.
Reviewed counting units, statistical assumptions and numerical examples. Provider accounting and actual GPU allocation still require external measurement.
Before running: predict a boundary case
Resample paired independent seed/run means, not correlated rows from one run. Percentile bootstrap is not a causal claim or a p-value; a degenerate fixture can produce a zero-width interval.
Hint: isolate the assumption
Keep the baseline input fixed, change one parameter or boundary, and compare both the numerical result and the claimed units. A passing example verifies this fixture only.
Minimal executable example
Save the example and linked modules in one folder. Use Node.js 22 or newer, then run node eval-compare.mjs. npm install gpt-tokenizer@4.1.0
import {encode as rawEncode} from 'gpt-tokenizer/encoding/cl100k_base';
import {promptDiff,inspectDataset,chunkDocument,compareScores,estimateVRAM,samplingLab,speculativeLab} from './research-core.mjs';
const encode=s=>rawEncode(s,{disallowedSpecial:new Set()});
const result=compareScores('id,a,b\nx,1,2\ny,4,5\nz,0,1','higher',42);
console.log(result.delta,result.ci); // 1 [1,1]; degenerate fixture, not evidence of zero uncertainty in generalTest and transfer
Resample paired independent seed/run means, not correlated rows from one run. Percentile bootstrap is not a causal claim or a p-value; a degenerate fixture can produce a zero-width interval.
Record input, code version, expected result and observed result in the notebook below. Then construct a counterexample that violates the assumption above and explain why the original conclusion no longer follows.
Download complete kit (.tar.gz) · Complete reference kit and regression checksPredict, test and keep evidence
Before revealing an answer, predict one result. After the exercise, record the discrepancy and a transfer test. Saved locally across language editions.
Open notebook / export / clear →The mathematical review scope is recorded per lesson. It does not establish empirical paper reproduction; report suspected errors in your notes. Review scope