Skip to content

feat(eval): measure AVeriTeC with the browser and the judge (20.10) - #16

Merged
Yigtwxx merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
feat/eval-browser-judge
Oct 5, 2026
Merged

Yigtwxx merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
feat/eval-browser-judge

Conversation

@Yigtwxx

@Yigtwxx Yigtwxx commented Oct 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What this changes

  • scripts/eval_averitec.py gains --browser, --judge and --fresh. Every source now records the ladder step that read it and, under --judge, the judge's opinion when its verdict was in the escalation band. The report adds two numbers beside the product's:

    • the accuracy with the browser's pages dropped (a lower bound on the pages a run without the browser reads, not on its accuracy);
    • a hypothetical column in which the judge decides the low band, labelled as something the product never does (spec §11.1).

    Each run setup gets its own results file and report, so a --resume never mixes setups.

  • verify.escalates(verdict) is public, so the eval measures the exact band the product sends to the judge.

  • Three runs on 2026-10-05 (AVeriTeC dev, 100 claims, 0.708 majority baseline):

    Run 3-way Without the browser
    Gold URLs, browser, judge 0.371 0.348
    Search, browser, sentence queries 0.371 0.348
    Search, browser, judge queries 0.483 0.483
  • README "Measured", the evidence-search section, the site's Measured data, CHANGELOG, and OPEN-ITEMS (20.10 done; new 20.13, 20.14 and 20.15).

Why

OPEN-ITEMS 20.10: every published AVeriTeC number had been measured without the browser and without the judge. The results:

  • Coverage is no longer the main loss. 165 of 200 gold URLs were read, and the browser is worth about two claims, which is within the noise.
  • The reading is the loss. 36 of 89 claims had a readable source and came back NEI.
  • The judge's queries are the one gain that cleared the noise: 14 claims fixed, 4 broken, exact McNemar p = 0.031.
  • As shipped, the judge never sees an NEI (no passage, rule 1), so its hypothetical column equals the product (20.13).
  • Search calls far more false claims SUPPORTED than the cited sources do: 20 to 22 of 63, against 5 (20.15). The cause is marked as an unmeasured hypothesis.

The harness change had an independent review and a re-review, and every number in the prose was fact-checked against the raw results (3 rounds).

Checklist

  • ruff check and ruff format --check are clean (and mypy --strict, plus mypy scripts/eval_averitec.py)
  • pytest passes
  • Type annotations on every new function signature
  • No network access in unit tests
  • If a new reported state was added, spec section 15 is updated too (none added)
  • This change does not make the tool sound more confident than its evidence

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01K46EEsxMvuAuM8wjvPNWLM

Yigtwxx and others added 3 commits October 5, 2026 13:26
Every published AVeriTeC number so far was measured without the browser
step and without the judge, so neither one's effect on the open-web gap
is known. The harness now keeps one record per source: the ladder step
that read it, the models' verdict, and the judge's opinion when the
verdict was in the escalation band.

From that record the report adds two numbers beside the product's: the
accuracy with the browser's pages dropped, and a hypothetical column in
which the judge decides the low band. The product never lets the judge
change a verdict (spec 11.1), and the report says so.

verify.escalates is public now, so the eval measures the exact band the
product sends to the judge instead of a copy of the rule.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01K46EEsxMvuAuM8wjvPNWLM
Three runs answer OPEN-ITEMS 20.10. With the gold URLs the score is
0.371, and the browser is worth about two claims. Search with sentence
queries scores 0.371. Search with judge-written queries scores 0.483:
14 claims fixed, 4 broken, p = 0.031, the one gain that cleared the
noise. The majority baseline is 0.708.

The reports also record what the numbers do not flatter. Coverage is no
longer the main loss: NEI on a source that was read is. As shipped, the
judge never sees an NEI (20.13). Search calls far more false claims
SUPPORTED than the cited sources do (20.15). Causes that were not
measured are marked as hypotheses.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01K46EEsxMvuAuM8wjvPNWLM
@vercel

vercel Bot commented Oct 5, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated
proofpath Ready Ready Preview Oct 5, 2026 12:19pm UTC

@Yigtwxx
Yigtwxx merged commit e15d51b into main Oct 5, 2026
11 checks passed
@Yigtwxx
Yigtwxx deleted the feat/eval-browser-judge branch October 5, 2026 12:25

This branch was successfully deployed

1 active deployment
Preview — bd8bf4ec Deployed Oct 5, 2026 by vercel[bot]
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant