Evaluation Reports
Diagnostics & Reports
Detailed breakdown of the evaluation: agent configurations, judge models, bias, calibration,
and validation checks. All results reflect v1.0.0.
Summary
✅
Phase IV Published: 5 hypotheses · 3 agents · 2 judges · bias 93 · ECE 0.0528.
Hypotheses
5
H1–H5 (all supported)
Agents
3
Direct, RAG, Tool
Judges
2
Zero-Shot, Evidence
ECE
0.0528
after Temperature Scaling
Hypotheses
Five hypotheses tested. All supported (H3 and H5 partially).
| ID | Hypothesis | Result | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Evidence Grounding | Direct: 5–10 vs RAG/Tool: 50–95 | Supported |
| H2 | Position Bias | Bias = 93 points | Supported |
| H3 | Judge Reliability | Evidence: 5 vs ZeroShot: 20 | Partially Supported |
| H4 | Calibration | ECE = 0.0528 (after T=2.0) | Supported |
| H5 | Robustness | RAG: 0.00 (Evidence) vs 2.24 (ZeroShot) | Partially Supported |
Agent Scores (T1–T3)
Scores by agent and judge (T1: population, T2: GDP, T3: water).
| Agent | Judge | T1 | T2 | T3 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct | Zero-Shot | 20 | 5 | 5 | Low |
| Direct | Evidence | 10 | 5 | 0 | Low |
| RAG | Zero-Shot | 95 | 5 | 5 | High (T1) |
| RAG | Evidence | 95 | 30 | 20 | High (T1) |
| Tool | Zero-Shot | 95 | 30 | 85 | High (T1, T3) |
| Tool | Evidence | 95 | 40 | 50 | High (T1) |
Position Bias
Score difference when response order is reversed.
| Condition | Score |
|---|---|
| Response A first (Direct) | 5 |
| Response B first (RAG) | 98 |
| Bias magnitude | 93 |
Bias > 10 points indicates detectable position bias.
Calibration
Expected Calibration Error (ECE) before and after Temperature Scaling.
| Condition | ECE | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Before (raw confidence) | 0.3694 | Miscalibrated |
| After (Temperature Scaling, T=2.0) | 0.0528 | Well-calibrated |
ECE < 0.10 indicates good calibration.
Consistency (5 Repetitions)
Standard Deviation across 5 repeated evaluations per agent-judge pair.
| Agent | Judge | StDev | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct | Zero-Shot | 0.00 | Consistent |
| Direct | Evidence | 0.00 | Consistent |
| RAG | Zero-Shot | 2.24 | Slight variance |
| RAG | Evidence | 0.00 | Consistent |
| Tool | Zero-Shot | 0.00 | Consistent |
| Tool | Evidence | 2.74 | Slight variance |
Validation Checks
5 diagnostic checks executed. All pass at v1.0.0.
| Check | Description | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Position Bias | |S_A_first − S_A_second| = 93 | PASS |
| Calibration (before) | ECE = 0.3694 | WARN |
| Calibration (after) | ECE = 0.0528 | PASS |
| Consistency (RAG) | StDev = 0.00 (Evidence) vs 2.24 (ZeroShot) | PASS |
| Causal claims | None (descriptive/comparative) | PASS |
Methodological Principles
Each principle is documented and tested.
Descriptive
No causal claims.
Reproducible
Code and data available.
Evidence-Based
Structured judge verification.
Calibrated
Temperature Scaling applied.
Bias-Aware
Position bias measured.
Open Data
Groq API, World Bank API.
Evaluation Specification
# Judge Evaluation
Score = f(Task, Agent Response, Evidence)
Confidence = g(Task, Response, Evidence)
# Calibration
conf_calibrated = conf_raw / T
ECE = Σ (|S_b| / N) × |acc(S_b) − conf(S_b)|
# Position Bias
B_position = |S_A_first − S_A_second|
# Consistency
StDev = sqrt( Σ (x_i − mean)² / (n − 1) )
# Golden rule
All relationships are descriptive. No causal claims.
Limitations Coverage
6 limitations documented; each is stated in the manuscript.
| ID | Limitation | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| L1 | Small benchmark (3 tasks) | Stated |
| L2 | Single judge model (Groq) | Stated |
| L3 | No human evaluation | Stated |
| L4 | No multi-judge consensus | Stated |
| L5 | Descriptive inference only | Stated |
| L6 | API dependency (Groq) | Stated |
Scope & Limits
Explicit scope of v1.0.0.
| Concern | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Small benchmark (3 tasks) | Stated; future work to extend (60 tasks) |
| Single judge model | Stated; future work (multi-judge) |
| No human evaluation | Stated; deferred |
| API dependency | Stated; fallback implemented |
| Causal identification | Deferred (descriptive only) |