rockman/docs/scoring.md

Rockman Benchmark v0.2 - Scoring Methodology

Overview

This document provides complete technical details on how Rockman scores are calculated, including Pass@k, category breakdowns, efficiency/robustness scores, confidence intervals, and statistical significance testing.

Pass@k Metric

Definition

Pass@k measures the probability that at least one of k sampled solutions is correct, given n total samples with c correct.

Formula

Implementation

def estimate_pass_at_k(n: int, c: int, k: int) -> float:
    if n - c < k:
        return 1.0
    return 1.0 - math.comb(n - c, k) / math.comb(n, k)

Properties

• Pass@1 = c/n (simple accuracy)
• Pass@k ≥ Pass@1 for k > 1
• As k → n, Pass@k → 1 if c > 0
• Requires n ≥ k for meaningful results

Per-Problem vs Aggregate

Per-Problem: Each problem evaluated with n samples → Pass@k per problem Aggregate: Mean of per-problem Pass@k values

$$\text{Overall}=\frac{1}{N}\sum _{i=1}^N{\text{Pass@k}}_i\backslash text\{Overall\}\; =\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{N\}\backslash sum\_\{i=1\}^N\; \backslash text\{Pass@k\}\_i$$

Category-Level Scoring

Weighted Mean Pass@k

For each category C:

$${\text{Score}}_C=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\mid }C\mathrm{\mid }}\sum _{p\in C}{\text{Pass@k}}_p\backslash text\{Score\}\_C\; =\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{|C|\}\backslash sum\_\{p\; \backslash in\; C\}\; \backslash text\{Pass@k\}\_p$$

This ensures each problem contributes equally regardless of sample count.

Subcategory Scoring

Same formula applied at subcategory level for finer granularity.

Specialized Scores

Efficiency Score

Measures ability to produce asymptotically optimal solutions.

$$\text{Efficiency}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\mid }E\mathrm{\mid }}\sum _{p\in E}{\text{Pass@1}}_p\backslash text\{Efficiency\}\; =\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{|E|\}\backslash sum\_\{p\; \backslash in\; E\}\; \backslash text\{Pass@1\}\_p$$

Where E = {problems tagged with "complexity" or "efficiency"}

Includes problems requiring:

• O(1), O(log n), O(n), O(n log n) algorithms
• Explicit complexity constraints
• Performance tests that fail slow solutions

Robustness Score

Measures handling of edge cases and boundary conditions.

$$\text{Robustness}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\mid }R\mathrm{\mid }}\sum _{p\in R}{\text{Pass@1}}_p\backslash text\{Robustness\}\; =\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{|R|\}\backslash sum\_\{p\; \backslash in\; R\}\; \backslash text\{Pass@1\}\_p$$

Where R = {problems tagged with "edge-case" or "robustness"}

Includes problems testing:

• Empty inputs, single elements
• Duplicates, negative values
• Very large inputs, overflow
• Unicode, cycles, disconnected graphs

Difficulty Scoring

Difficulty-Level Pass Rate

$${\text{Difficulty}}_d=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\mid }{D}_d\mathrm{\mid }}\sum _{p\in D_d}{\text{Pass@1}}_p\backslash text\{Difficulty\}\_d\; =\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{|D\_d|\}\backslash sum\_\{p\; \backslash in\; D\_d\}\; \backslash text\{Pass@1\}\_p$$

Where $D_d$ = problems at difficulty level d.

Calibration Validation

A well-calibrated benchmark should show:

• Monotonicity: Score(d) ≥ Score(d+1) for all d
• Separation: Score(1) - Score(7) ≥ 0.5 (50% gap)
• Statistical separation: Non-overlapping confidence intervals between adjacent levels

Expected Score Ranges (Human Calibrated)

Difficulty	Expected Range	Notes
1 (Intro)	90-100%	Near-ceiling for competent models
2 (Easy)	75-95%	Standard algorithms
3 (Intermediate)	60-85%	Multi-step reasoning
4 (Advanced)	40-70%	Optimization required
5 (Hard)	20-50%	Novel algorithm design
6 (Expert)	5-30%	Research-level
7 (Research)	0-15%	Open/unsolved variants

Confidence Intervals

Wilson Score Interval

For binomial proportion with n trials, c successes, 95% CI:

$$\widehat{p}=\frac{c+z^2\mathrm{/}2}{n+z^2}\backslash hat\{p\}\; =\; \backslash frac\{c\; +\; z^2/2\}\{n\; +\; z^2\}$$ $$\text{margin}=\frac{z}{n+z^2}\sqrt{\frac{c(n-c)}{n}+\frac{z^2}{4}}\backslash text\{margin\}\; =\; \backslash frac\{z\}\{n\; +\; z^2\}\backslash sqrt\{\backslash frac\{c(n-c)\}\{n\}\; +\; \backslash frac\{z^2\}\{4\}\}$$ $$\text{CI}=[\widehat{p}-\text{margin},\widehat{p}+\text{margin}]\backslash text\{CI\}\; =\; [\backslash hat\{p\}\; -\; \backslash text\{margin\},\; \backslash hat\{p\}\; +\; \backslash text\{margin\}]$$

Where $z = 1.96$ for 95% confidence.

Implementation

def calculate_confidence_interval(passed: int, total: int, confidence: float = 0.95):
    if total == 0:
        return (0.0, 0.0)
    z = 1.96 if confidence == 0.95 else 2.576
    p = passed / total
    denominator = 1 + z**2 / total
    centre = (p + z**2 / (2 * total)) / denominator
    half = z * math.sqrt(p * (1 - p) / total + z**2 / (4 * total**2)) / denominator
    return (max(0, centre - half) * 100, min(1, centre + half) * 100)

Reporting

• Overall score: CI based on (passed_tasks, total_tasks)
• Per-category: CI based on samples in that category
• Per-difficulty: CI based on samples at that level

Statistical Significance

Two-Proportion Z-Test

Comparing model A (n₁, c₁) vs model B (n₂, c₂):

$$p_1=c_1\mathrm{/}{n}_1,p_2=c_2\mathrm{/}{n}_{2}p\_1\; =\; c\_1/n\_1,\; \backslash quad\; p\_2\; =\; c\_2/n\_2$$ $$p_{pool}=(c_1+c_2)\mathrm{/}(n_1+n_2)p\_\{pool\}\; =\; (c\_1\; +\; c\_2)/(n\_1\; +\; n\_2)$$ $$SE=\sqrt{p_{pool}(1-p_{pool})(1\mathrm{/}{n}_1+1\mathrm{/}{n}_2)}SE\; =\; \backslash sqrt\{p\_\{pool\}(1-p\_\{pool\})(1/n\_1\; +\; 1/n\_2)\}$$ $$z=(p_1-p_2)\mathrm{/}SEz\; =\; (p\_1\; -\; p\_2)\; /\; SE$$ $$p\text{-value}=2(1-\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\mid }z\mathrm{\mid }))p\backslash text\{-value\}\; =\; 2(1\; -\; \backslash Phi(|z|))$$

Significant if p < 0.05.

Implementation

def statistical_significance(score1, score2):
    n1, c1 = score1.total_tasks, score1.passed_tasks
    n2, c2 = score2.total_tasks, score2.passed_tasks
    p1, p2 = c1/n1, c2/n2
    p_pool = (c1 + c2) / (n1 + n2)
    se = math.sqrt(p_pool * (1 - p_pool) * (1/n1 + 1/n2))
    z = (p1 - p2) / se if se > 0 else 0
    p_value = 2 * (1 - stats.norm.cdf(abs(z)))
    return {
        "significant": p_value < 0.05,
        "p_value": p_value,
        "z_score": z,
        "diff": (p1 - p2) * 100
    }

Multiple Comparison Correction

When comparing k models against a baseline, apply Bonferroni correction:

• Adjusted α = 0.05 / k
• Or use Benjamini-Hochberg FDR control

Leaderboard Scoring

Composite Score

Overall leaderboard rank by Overall Score (mean Pass@1).

Tie-Breaking

1. Higher Overall Score
2. Higher Advanced+ Score (difficulty ≥ 4)
3. Higher Efficiency Score
4. Higher Robustness Score
5. More problems attempted

Required Metadata

Each leaderboard entry must include:

• Model name & version
• Temperature, max_tokens, num_attempts
• Hardware specification
• Evaluation date
• Benchmark version
• Confidence intervals

Human Baseline Scoring

Participant Scoring

Individual human: fraction of problems solved within time limit.

Group Aggregation

Mean of individual pass rates (not pooled attempts):

$$\text{Human Score}=\frac{1}{N}\sum _{i=1}^N{\text{pass\_rate}}_i\backslash text\{Human\; Score\}\; =\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{N\}\backslash sum\_\{i=1\}^N\; \backslash text\{pass\backslash \_rate\}\_i$$

Experience-Level Breakdown

Report pass rates by:

• Novice (<1 yr)
• Junior (1-3 yr)
• Mid (3-7 yr)
• Senior (7-15 yr)
• Expert (15+ yr)
• Competitive (CP background)

Reporting Standards

Required Report Sections

1. Executive Summary: Overall score, key metrics
2. Difficulty Breakdown: Table with 95% CIs
3. Category Breakdown: All 12 categories
4. Task Type Breakdown: 10 types
5. Language Breakdown: If multi-language
6. Efficiency/Robustness: Specialized scores
7. Calibration Results: Reference model comparison
8. Human Baseline: If available
9. Statistical Significance: Model comparisons
10. Reproducibility: Environment, seeds, manifest

Visualization Recommendations

• Bar charts with error bars (95% CI)
• Difficulty progression line chart
• Category heatmap
• Model comparison grouped bar chart
• Pass@k curve (k=1,5,10,20,50)