verdictpack / GO-RUN-OUTPUT.md
nootxlm's picture
Publish verdict pack
d9f7038 verified
|
Raw History Blame Contribute Delete
17.3 kB

Design report -- Summarization bias — evaluative regime (Stage 3 core)

Source protocol: Bulut, Summarization Bias v1.1, Section 5 (Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22817289)

  • Standard design point: alpha = 0.05 (2-sided), power = 0.8
  • Decisive design point: alpha = 0.01 (2-sided), power = 0.95
  • Computed exactly (exact enumeration / exact noncentral-t; closed forms shown only where labelled); base seed = 20261021 (reference MC streams in the Python build agree within their standard errors).

1. Required sample size per arm

Arm Test Effect as specified n at standard point Exact power at that n n at decisive point Current n Exact power at current n
Stage 3, evaluative (core) two-proportion z, pooled h = 0.3 -> rate 0.5 vs 0.648; OR = 2 -> rate 0.667 (h = 0.340); governing h = 0.300 175 per group 0.796 396 per group 20 per group 0.146
Stage 2, generative paired t on SI differences dz = 0.5 (worked value -- the paper fixes no SI effect size) 34 pairs 0.808 75 pairs 20 pairs 0.565
Density calibration arm one-sample exact binomial vs chance h = 0.3 -> rate 0.5 vs 0.648 (exact search on the unrounded rate 0.64776) 92 pairs (exact power 0.815; closed form 88) -- 202 pairs (exact power 0.952; closed form 197) 20 pairs (exact power 0.239)
SI reader validation one-sample exact binomial vs chance rate 0.5 vs 0.65 (worked values -- chance depends on the coding scheme) 90 items (exact power 0.812; closed form 85) -- 195 items (exact power 0.953; closed form 191) 20 items (exact power 0.246)
Register arm two-proportion z per register stratum h = 0.3 -> rate 0.5 vs 0.648 175 contents per stratum (700 versions) 0.796 396 contents per stratum 20 contents per stratum 0.146

2. Falsifier-fire audit -- Stage 3 at the registered size

Setup: 20 pairs per group; true effect set exactly at the registered threshold (h = 0.300, rates 0.5 vs 0.648). 'Fires' = the test is not significant, so the registered falsifier triggers against a true effect.

Reading Test Power P(falsifier fires)
Registered (model rate vs human rate) normal approx 0.156 0.844
Registered pooled z, exact enumeration 0.146 0.854
Registered Fisher exact, exact enumeration 0.089 0.911
Alternate (model rate vs chance, OR threshold) exact binomial 0.297 0.703
Alternate (paired per-item contrast) paired z, exact under the normal model 0.269 0.731

Registered reading, across test variants: P(fire) = 0.844 to 0.911.

3a. Input-separation gate (his post #5): pairs must clear a minimum SI separation before Stage 3; failed pairs are reported and replaced -- build budget (standard point)

Target: >= 175 pairs pass the gate. Assurance: P(passing >= 175) >= 0.9. Exact binomial search; assurance computed exactly.

Pair failure rate Pairs to build (exact) Expected passing Exact assurance
0.1 201 180.9 0.929
0.2 228 182.4 0.903
0.3 263 184.1 0.901
0.5 374 187.0 0.902

3b. Input-separation gate (his post #5): pairs must clear a minimum SI separation before Stage 3; failed pairs are reported and replaced -- build budget (decisive point)

Target: >= 396 pairs pass the gate. Assurance: P(passing >= 396) >= 0.9. Exact binomial search; assurance computed exactly.

Pair failure rate Pairs to build (exact) Expected passing Exact assurance
0.1 449 404.1 0.909
0.2 509 407.2 0.901
0.3 586 410.2 0.907
0.5 828 414.0 0.901

4. Scale table

Per pair: 2 stimulus versions (4 with the register arm), 4 Stage 3 judge calls (3 model families + 1 human rater), SI coding passes = versions x 2 raters. Stage 4 = two further Stage 3 passes (length-mismatched, framing-varied).

Pairs Versions Versions with register arm Stage 3 judge calls Stage 4 judge calls SI coding passes
175 350 700 700 1400 700
500 1000 2000 2000 4000 2000
1000 2000 4000 4000 8000 4000
2000 4000 8000 8000 16000 8000

5. Registration skeleton (filled from this config)

  1. Construct: summarization bias -- the systematic tendency of a model, in generation or in evaluation, to replace or prefer reconstructable shown-mode structure with the abstract summary label that names its content (paper S4.3).
  2. Thresholds, fixed in advance: model told-preference rate exceeds human rate with Cohen's h >= 0.3 or odds ratio >= 2 (paper S5.3). Alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) at the standard point; alpha = 0.01, power = 0.95 at the decisive point.
  3. Stimuli: build the gate-budget count from Table 3 for the expected failure rate (standard point) -- word count +/-5%, grade matched (paper S5.1).
  4. Coding gate: SI coded by two independent raters per version; no category proceeds at Cohen's kappa < 0.60 (paper S5.1).
  5. Input-separation gate: a pair enters Stage 3 only if its two members separate on SI by the registered minimum; failed pairs are counted, reported, and replaced from the build budget (thread post #5).
  6. Stage 2 (generative): >= 3 model families, shown-mode instruction, SI compared to the human shown target; n = 34 pairs at the standard point, 75 at the decisive point (Table 1).
  7. Stage 3 (evaluative, core): pairs judged by the same models and by a human panel, order counterbalanced; n = 175 pairs per group at the standard point, 396 at the decisive point (Table 1).
  8. Stage 4 (discriminant): Stage 3 re-run (a) length-mismatched and (b) framing-varied; a preference that vanishes under either is reclassified as that known bias (paper S5.4).
  9. Added arms, sized in Table 1: density calibration (92 pairs), SI reader validation (90 items), register arm (175 contents per stratum). No arm is registered without its own size from this table.
  10. Decision rules (paper S5.5): Stage 3 supports and Stage 4 survives -> confirmed at the scope tested. Stage 3 falsifies -> construct withdrawn, published with the same prominence as a confirmation. Post-hoc qualifiers are prohibited.

== verdict, construct 1 ==

Verdict report -- Summarization bias (evaluative regime)

  • Transformation: same content rendered twice: told (surface-declared) vs shown (Objective Projection encoding)
  • Metric: Suppressed Information Index (SI) separation between the two members of a pair
  • Baseline (human) preference rate: 0.5; threshold: Cohen's h >= 0.3 or OR >= 2
  • Model rate at the governing threshold: 0.648 (h-reading 0.648, OR-reading 0.667; the smaller effect governs)
  • Simulation trials per cell: 20000; pair cap per run: 5000; base seed: 20261021

V1. Stimulus factory (generated pairs, mechanical gate)

Gate rule: measured separation >= 1 on the metric, or the pair is regenerated. Generator settings from config: true separation ~ Normal(1.6, 0.5), measurement noise sd = 0.25.

Pairs required Pairs generated (simulated) Fail rate, simulated Fail rate, normal model
175 (standard pool) 202 0.134 0.142
396 (decisive pool) 481 0.177 0.142

Human spot-check of the mechanical gate: sample 29 pairs to have 0.95 probability of catching at least one disagreement if the true disagreement rate is >= 0.1; sample 139 pairs to estimate the agreement rate within +/-0.05 at 95% confidence (expected agreement 0.9). Coding passes: detection sample = 116, estimation sample = 556. The old design codes every pair: 700 passes at the standard size, 1584 at the decisive size.

V2. Sequential verdict (SPRT on discordant pairs)

Discordant rates at the threshold effect: effect-direction 0.324, reverse 0.176; conditional discordant rate 0.648. Under the null both are 0.250.

Standard Truth P(verdict: effect) P(verdict: no effect) P(undecided at cap) Mean pairs to verdict Median pairs
standard (alpha 0.05, beta 0.2) effect at threshold 0.833 0.167 0.000 95.2 78
standard (alpha 0.05, beta 0.2) no effect (null) 0.046 0.954 0.000 66.1 47
decisive (alpha 0.01, beta 0.05) effect at threshold 0.956 0.044 0.000 195.6 168
decisive (alpha 0.01, beta 0.05) no effect (null) 0.009 0.991 0.000 135.3 106

V3. Cost per verdict -- fixed-n design vs sequential design

Counted units only. Judge calls = pairs x judges per pair. Coding passes = pairs x versions x raters (old), or the spot-check sample (new). Sequential rows use mean pairs-to-verdict from Table V2, truth = effect at threshold.

Design Standard Pairs Judge calls Human coding passes Total touches
Fixed-n (old) standard 175 700 700 1400
Sequential (new) standard 95.2 mean 381 116 (spot-check) 497
Fixed-n (old) decisive 396 1584 1584 3168
Sequential (new) decisive 195.6 mean 782 116 (spot-check) 898

== verdict, construct 2 ==

Verdict report -- Length preference in model judges (second construct, same engine, no code changes)

  • Transformation: same answer rendered at two lengths (long vs short, content held constant)
  • Metric: word-count ratio between the two members of a pair (mechanical, no raters)
  • Baseline (human) preference rate: 0.5; threshold: Cohen's h >= 0.3 or OR >= 2
  • Model rate at the governing threshold: 0.648 (h-reading 0.648, OR-reading 0.667; the smaller effect governs)
  • Simulation trials per cell: 20000; pair cap per run: 5000; base seed: 20261021

V1. Stimulus factory (generated pairs, mechanical gate)

Gate rule: measured separation >= 1 on the metric, or the pair is regenerated. Generator settings from config: true separation ~ Normal(1.6, 0.5), measurement noise sd = 0.25.

Pairs required Pairs generated (simulated) Fail rate, simulated Fail rate, normal model
175 (standard pool) 202 0.134 0.142
396 (decisive pool) 481 0.177 0.142

Human spot-check of the mechanical gate: sample 29 pairs to have 0.95 probability of catching at least one disagreement if the true disagreement rate is >= 0.1; sample 139 pairs to estimate the agreement rate within +/-0.05 at 95% confidence (expected agreement 0.9). Coding passes: detection sample = 116, estimation sample = 556. The old design codes every pair: 700 passes at the standard size, 1584 at the decisive size.

V2. Sequential verdict (SPRT on discordant pairs)

Discordant rates at the threshold effect: effect-direction 0.324, reverse 0.176; conditional discordant rate 0.648. Under the null both are 0.250.

Standard Truth P(verdict: effect) P(verdict: no effect) P(undecided at cap) Mean pairs to verdict Median pairs
standard (alpha 0.05, beta 0.2) effect at threshold 0.833 0.167 0.000 95.2 78
standard (alpha 0.05, beta 0.2) no effect (null) 0.046 0.954 0.000 66.1 47
decisive (alpha 0.01, beta 0.05) effect at threshold 0.956 0.044 0.000 195.6 168
decisive (alpha 0.01, beta 0.05) no effect (null) 0.009 0.991 0.000 135.3 106

V3. Cost per verdict -- fixed-n design vs sequential design

Counted units only. Judge calls = pairs x judges per pair. Coding passes = pairs x versions x raters (old), or the spot-check sample (new). Sequential rows use mean pairs-to-verdict from Table V2, truth = effect at threshold.

Design Standard Pairs Judge calls Human coding passes Total touches
Fixed-n (old) standard 175 700 700 1400
Sequential (new) standard 95.2 mean 381 116 (spot-check) 497
Fixed-n (old) decisive 396 1584 1584 3168
Sequential (new) decisive 195.6 mean 782 116 (spot-check) 898

== judge layer ==

Judge-layer report -- Summarization bias (evaluative regime)

Judges enter as character sheets: baseline_rate (standing told-preference), lean_h (signed shift at the threshold effect, Cohen's h units), noise (0..1 attenuation toward 0.5). Stream rate = mean of member rates. Discordant rates from a Gaussian copula between the two streams (latent correlation rho from the panel). SPRT increments fixed by the construct's design rates (discordant rate 0.648), as in the verdict layer. Simulation trials per cell: 20000; pair cap: 5000; base seed: 20261021. Human coding passes per verdict (spot-check, unchanged): 116.

Panel 1 -- Registered panel (as designed)

The panel his protocol implies: three model families that register the full threshold effect, one aggregate human stream at baseline, noiseless sheets, uncorrelated streams. This composition reproduces the verdict layer's rates (u 0.324, v 0.176) and stands as the control row.

Judge Role Baseline Lean h Noise
Model family 1 model 0.5 +0.30 0
Model family 2 model 0.5 +0.30 0
Model family 3 model 0.5 +0.30 0
Human panel (aggregate) human 0.5 +0.00 0
Panel latent correlation rho 0
  • Stream rates, effect at threshold: model 0.648, human 0.500; discordant u 0.324, v 0.176.
  • Stream rates, no effect (null): model 0.500, human 0.500; discordant u 0.250, v 0.250.
Standard Truth P(verdict: effect) P(verdict: no effect) P(undecided at cap) Mean pairs Judge calls Total touches
standard (alpha 0.05, beta 0.2) effect at threshold 0.829 0.171 0.000 95.0 380 496
standard (alpha 0.05, beta 0.2) no effect (null) 0.049 0.951 0.000 66.2 265 381
decisive (alpha 0.01, beta 0.05) effect at threshold 0.956 0.044 0.000 196.0 784 900
decisive (alpha 0.01, beta 0.05) no effect (null) 0.009 0.991 0.000 135.5 542 658

Panel 2 -- Mixed realistic panel

Three model families with different baselines, leans, and noise; three human raters who are not neutral instruments either; streams mildly correlated (rho 0.20) because both sides read the same salient surface features.

Judge Role Baseline Lean h Noise
Model A model 0.5 +0.30 0.1
Model B model 0.52 +0.22 0.2
Model C model 0.48 +0.38 0.05
Human rater 1 human 0.5 +0.05 0.15
Human rater 2 human 0.55 -0.05 0.25
Human rater 3 human 0.47 +0.00 0.1
Panel latent correlation rho 0.2
  • Stream rates, effect at threshold: model 0.631, human 0.504; discordant u 0.283, v 0.156.
  • Stream rates, no effect (null): model 0.499, human 0.503; discordant u 0.216, v 0.220.
Standard Truth P(verdict: effect) P(verdict: no effect) P(undecided at cap) Mean pairs Judge calls Total touches
standard (alpha 0.05, beta 0.2) effect at threshold 0.819 0.181 0.000 109.2 655 771
standard (alpha 0.05, beta 0.2) no effect (null) 0.041 0.959 0.000 72.5 435 551
decisive (alpha 0.01, beta 0.05) effect at threshold 0.953 0.047 0.000 229.5 1377 1493
decisive (alpha 0.01, beta 0.05) no effect (null) 0.006 0.994 0.000 146.0 876 992

Panel 3 -- Adversarial panel

Judges lean against the construct (negative lean: they prefer the shown member), baselines scattered, streams strongly correlated (rho 0.50) -- the panel composition a hostile review would assemble. Priced before a single judgement is spent.

Judge Role Baseline Lean h Noise
Model X model 0.45 -0.20 0.1
Model Y model 0.5 -0.20 0.1
Model Z model 0.55 -0.20 0.1
Human rater A human 0.5 -0.10 0.15
Human rater B human 0.45 -0.10 0.15
Panel latent correlation rho 0.5
  • Stream rates, effect at threshold: model 0.411, human 0.437; discordant u 0.151, v 0.176.
  • Stream rates, no effect (null): model 0.500, human 0.479; discordant u 0.177, v 0.156.
Standard Truth P(verdict: effect) P(verdict: no effect) P(undecided at cap) Mean pairs Judge calls Total touches
standard (alpha 0.05, beta 0.2) effect at threshold 0.011 0.989 0.000 73.4 367 483
standard (alpha 0.05, beta 0.2) no effect (null) 0.130 0.870 0.000 128.2 641 757
decisive (alpha 0.01, beta 0.05) effect at threshold 0.001 0.999 0.000 137.7 688 804
decisive (alpha 0.01, beta 0.05) no effect (null) 0.055 0.945 0.000 308.8 1544 1660

Panel comparison -- decisive standard (alpha 0.01, beta 0.05)

Panel Truth P(correct verdict) Mean pairs to verdict Judge calls Coding passes Total touches
Registered panel (as designed) effect at threshold 0.956 196.0 784 116 900
Registered panel (as designed) no effect (null) 0.991 135.5 542 116 658
Mixed realistic panel effect at threshold 0.953 229.5 1377 116 1493
Mixed realistic panel no effect (null) 0.994 146.0 876 116 992
Adversarial panel effect at threshold 0.001 137.7 688 116 804
Adversarial panel no effect (null) 0.945 308.8 1544 116 1660