Checking an A/B test until it crosses p < 0. 05 can turn a nominal 5 percent false-positive rate into almost 28 percent.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at Towards Data Science.
The article discusses a small adversarial test set designed to detect retrieval failures in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines that typical evaluation sets might miss. It emphasizes the importance of proactively testing your own RAG system to uncover hidden weaknesses before users encounter them. By using this targeted test set, developers can improve the reliability and robustness of their RAG models.
How a single evaluation choice inflated my results by 25 points, and what rebuilding honestly taught me about ML systems people might depend on The post My Fall-Detection Model Scored 94%, and It Was Lying to Me appeared first on Towards Data Science .
An online simulation and a novel method for increasing power The post How to Get More Statistical Power from Fewer Research Participants appeared first on Towards Data Science .
A preprocessing pipeline let my car price model peek at the test set before the exam, and the twelve points of R squared it cheated its way to The post My Model Was Cheating on Its Own Test appeared first on Towards Data Science .
A hands-on guide to tracking experiments, logging models, and reproducing results with ML Flow. The post Are Your ML Experiments a Mess?
The paper evaluates hard‑gate candidacy for validators in a deployed generative‑agent system by measuring how well each validator’s firing separates successful from failed builds. Across 13 validators and thousands of builds, only a few checks show statistically significant separation, while many fail to distinguish or never fire. The study highlights that skipped checks are recorded as passes, limiting detectable failure rates and underscoring the need for clearer evaluation records.