when-get-significantly-worse

name	when-get-significantly-worse
description	Statistically detect LLM degradation after optimization using McNemar's paired test. Use when: 'did quantization hurt my model', 'is this accuracy drop significant', 'compare model before and after optimization', 'detect model degradation', 'statistical test for LLM quality', 'is 0.5% accuracy drop real or noise'.

Detecting LLM Degradation with Statistical Rigor

This skill enables Claude to apply a paired hypothesis testing framework (based on McNemar's exact binomial test) to determine whether an observed accuracy drop between a baseline LLM and an optimized variant represents genuine degradation or harmless evaluation noise. Unlike naive accuracy comparison, this method compares per-sample outcomes between model pairs, correctly accounts for the correlation structure in paired evaluations, and controls the false positive rate. It can detect real degradations as small as 0.3% with statistical confidence.

When to Use

• When a user has quantized, distilled, pruned, or otherwise optimized an LLM and needs to verify quality was preserved
• When a user observes a small accuracy difference (e.g., 0.2%–2%) between two model checkpoints and asks "is this drop real?"
• When a user runs lm-eval benchmarks on a baseline and optimized model and wants a principled pass/fail decision
• When a user needs to aggregate degradation evidence across multiple benchmarks into a single go/no-go verdict
• When a user wants to reduce evaluation cost by selecting only the most informative benchmark samples
• When a user asks how to set up a CI/CD gate for model quality after optimization

Key Technique

Why naive comparison fails: Comparing aggregate accuracy numbers (e.g., 78.2% vs 77.9%) and computing independent confidence intervals dramatically overestimates uncertainty — by a factor of ~2.2x in realistic LLM settings. This is because the two accuracy estimates are highly correlated (both models are evaluated on the same samples). The result: you either miss real degradations or waste compute re-running evaluations.

McNemar's paired approach: Instead of comparing two accuracy numbers, construct a 2x2 contingency table of per-sample outcomes. For each evaluation sample, record whether the baseline got it right (M=1) or wrong (M=0), and likewise for the optimized model (M̃). The only cells that matter are the discordant pairs: b (baseline correct, optimized wrong — evidence of degradation) and c (baseline wrong, optimized correct — evidence of improvement). Under the null hypothesis of no degradation, the number of degradation flips b follows a Binomial(b+c, 0.5) distribution. A one-sided exact binomial test yields a p-value; reject H₀ if p < α (typically 0.05).

Multi-benchmark aggregation: When evaluating across T benchmarks, three complementary tests combine the evidence: (1) Pooled test — sums b and c across all tasks, best when degradation is spread uniformly; (2) Max-drop test — finds the task with the largest standardized degradation statistic, best for detecting degradation concentrated in a single benchmark; (3) Fisher's method — combines per-task p-values via χ² = −2∑ln(pᵢ), providing balanced sensitivity. Flag degradation if any of the three rejects at level α/3 (Bonferroni correction keeps overall false positive rate at α).

Step-by-Step Workflow

1. Collect per-sample scores from both models. Run lm-eval (or any evaluation harness) with --log_samples on the same benchmark samples for both the baseline and optimized model. Each sample must have a binary correctness score (0 or 1) and a shared prompt_id or doc_id to align results.

2. Align samples by ID. For each benchmark task, join the baseline and optimized results on the sample identifier. Discard any samples that appear in only one run. Verify that the sample count N matches expectations.

3. Build the 2x2 contingency table per task. Count: b = number of samples where baseline=1 and optimized=0 (degradation flips); c = number where baseline=0 and optimized=1 (improvement flips). Also record a (both wrong) and d (both right) for completeness.

4. Run the exact one-sided McNemar test per task. Compute n_flips = b + c. If n_flips == 0, the models agree perfectly on this task — no test needed. Otherwise, compute p_value = binomtest(k=b, n=n_flips, p=0.5, alternative='greater').pvalue using scipy.stats.binomtest.

5. Compute the empirical degradation probability. q_hat = b / (b + c). Values substantially above 0.5 indicate degradation; values near 0.5 suggest noise.

6. Aggregate across benchmarks using three methods. (a) Pooled: sum b and c across all tasks, run a single binomial test. (b) Max-drop: compute per-task z-scores z_t = (b_t - c_t) / sqrt(b_t + c_t), take the max, derive p-value via Monte Carlo simulation under H₀. (c) Fisher: combine per-task p-values with χ² = -2 * sum(log(p_t)), test against chi-squared distribution with 2T degrees of freedom.

7. Apply Bonferroni correction for the combined decision. Flag degradation if any of the three aggregation tests rejects at α/3. This keeps the overall false positive rate at α (e.g., 0.05).

8. Report results clearly. For each task: show accuracy delta, b, c, n_flips, q_hat, and p-value. For the aggregate: show pooled p-value, max-drop p-value, Fisher p-value, and the final pass/fail verdict.

9. If degradation is detected, identify which tasks contribute most (highest per-task q_hat or lowest per-task p-value) to guide debugging.

Concrete Examples

Example 1: Testing FP8 KV-cache quantization on a single benchmark

User: "I quantized my Llama-3.1 8B model's KV cache to FP8. MMLU-Pro accuracy went from 44.8% to 44.2%. Is this a real degradation or noise?"

Approach:

1. Load per-sample MMLU-Pro results for both models (N = 12,032 samples)
2. Align by prompt_id and build the contingency table
3. Run exact one-sided McNemar test

from scipy.stats import binomtest

# Per-sample comparison results
b = 412   # baseline correct, optimized wrong
c = 340   # baseline wrong, optimized correct
n_flips = b + c  # 752

q_hat = b / n_flips  # 0.548 — tilted toward degradation
p_value = binomtest(b, n_flips, 0.5, alternative='greater').pvalue
# p_value = 0.0058

print(f"Degradation flips: {b}, Improvement flips: {c}")
print(f"Empirical degradation probability: {q_hat:.3f}")
print(f"P-value: {p_value:.4f}")
print(f"Verdict: {'DEGRADATION DETECTED' if p_value < 0.05 else 'No significant degradation'}")

Output:

Degradation flips: 412, Improvement flips: 340
Empirical degradation probability: 0.548
P-value: 0.0058
Verdict: DEGRADATION DETECTED

The 0.6% accuracy drop is statistically significant (p=0.006 < 0.05). The KV-FP8 optimization caused real degradation.

---

Example 2: Multi-benchmark aggregation for a provably lossless optimization

User: "I applied a theoretically lossless compiler optimization to my 70B model. I see small accuracy fluctuations across 6 benchmarks. Should I be worried?"

Approach:

1. Collect per-sample results across all 6 Open LLM Leaderboard v2 tasks
2. Build contingency tables for each task
3. Run all three aggregation tests

from scipy.stats import binomtest, chi2
import numpy as np

# Per-task contingency counts: (b, c) for each benchmark
tasks = {
    "BBH":      (89, 95),
    "GPQA":     (12, 14),
    "IFEval":   (8, 11),
    "MATH":     (45, 42),
    "MMLU-Pro": (102, 108),
    "MuSR":     (18, 15),
}

alpha = 0.05
alpha_corrected = alpha / 3  # Bonferroni for 3 tests

# --- Pooled Test ---
b_pool = sum(t[0] for t in tasks.values())  # 274
c_pool = sum(t[1] for t in tasks.values())  # 285
p_pooled = binomtest(b_pool, b_pool + c_pool, 0.5, alternative='greater').pvalue

# --- Fisher's Method ---
p_values = []
for name, (b, c) in tasks.items():
    if b + c > 0:
        p_values.append(binomtest(b, b + c, 0.5, alternative='greater').pvalue)
fisher_stat = -2 * sum(np.log(p_values))
p_fisher = 1 - chi2.cdf(fisher_stat, df=2 * (p_values))


z_scores = []
 name, (b, c)  tasks.items():
    n = b + c
     n > :
        z_scores.append((b - c) / np.sqrt(n))
z_max = (z_scores)



()
()
()
()
()

Output:

Pooled: b=274, c=285, p=0.6744
Fisher: chi2=10.31, p=0.5887
Max z-score: 0.72
Verdict: No test rejects at alpha/3=0.0167
PASS — no statistically significant degradation detected

The small fluctuations are consistent with evaluation noise. The lossless optimization is confirmed safe.

---

Example 3: Setting up a CI/CD quality gate

User: "I want to add a statistical quality gate to our model deployment pipeline. How should I structure this?"

Approach:

1. Store baseline model per-sample scores in a reference file
2. After each optimization, run evaluation and compare

# ci_quality_gate.py — Drop into your CI pipeline
import json, sys
from scipy.stats import binomtest, chi2
import numpy as np

def load_scores(path):
    """Load {prompt_id: score} from lm-eval --log_samples output."""
    with open(path) as f:
        data = json.load(f)
    return {item["doc_id"]: item["acc"] for item in data}

def mcnemar_test(baseline_scores, optimized_scores, alpha=0.05):
    """Run one-sided McNemar test. Returns (p_value, b, c, verdict)."""
    common_ids = set(baseline_scores) & set(optimized_scores)
    b = sum(1 for i in common_ids if baseline_scores[i] == 1 and optimized_scores[i] == 0)
    c = sum(1 for i in common_ids if baseline_scores[i] == 0 and optimized_scores[i] == 1)
    n_flips = b + c
    if n_flips == 0:
        return 1.0, 0, 0, "PASS (no disagreements)"
    p = binomtest(b, n_flips, 0.5, alternative=).pvalue
    verdict =   p < alpha  
     p, b, c, verdict

 ():
    
    a3 = alpha / 
    b_all = (r[]  r  task_results)
    c_all = (r[]  r  task_results)

    
    p_pooled = binomtest(b_all, b_all + c_all, , alternative=).pvalue  (b_all + c_all) >   

    
    valid_p = [r[]  r  task_results  r[] + r[] > ]
     valid_p:
        fisher_stat = - * (np.log(valid_p))
        p_fisher =  - chi2.cdf(fisher_stat, df= * (valid_p))
    :
        p_fisher = 

    degraded = p_pooled < a3  p_fisher < a3
     {: p_pooled, : p_fisher, : degraded}

Best Practices

• Do: Always compare per-sample scores, never just aggregate accuracy numbers. The per-sample pairing is what gives this test its statistical power.
• Do: Use --log_samples in lm-eval to capture per-sample results with document IDs. Without sample-level data, this method cannot be applied.
• Do: Run all three aggregation methods (pooled, max-drop, Fisher) when testing across multiple benchmarks — they have complementary strengths for different degradation patterns.
• Do: Report the contingency table (b, c counts) alongside p-values so stakeholders can judge effect size, not just significance.
• Avoid: Treating accuracy estimates from the two models as independent. This overestimates variance by ~2x and makes real degradations look like noise.
• Avoid: Using this test with non-binary or continuous scores without adaptation. For continuous metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE), use a permutation-based paired test instead of the exact binomial McNemar test.

Error Handling

• No discordant pairs (b=0, c=0): The models agree on every sample. Report "No disagreements found — models are equivalent on this benchmark." This is common for easy benchmarks.
• Very few flips (b+c < 10): The test has low statistical power. Warn the user that the sample size is insufficient to detect small degradations and suggest adding more evaluation samples or benchmarks.
• Non-binary scores: If evaluation metrics are continuous (e.g., exact match with partial credit), binarize at a threshold first, or switch to a Wilcoxon signed-rank test on paired score differences.
• Misaligned samples: If the baseline and optimized model were run on different sample sets, the paired test is invalid. Ensure both use identical evaluation samples with matching IDs.
• Multiple testing without correction: If running separate tests on many benchmarks without aggregation, apply Bonferroni or use the three-test aggregation framework to control family-wise error rate.

Limitations

• Binary outcomes only: The core McNemar test requires binary correct/incorrect scores. Generative tasks with soft metrics (BLEU, semantic similarity) need a different paired test or binarization.
• Same evaluation set required: Both models must be evaluated on identical samples. This method does not apply to comparing models evaluated on different benchmark versions or subsets.
• Power depends on flip rate, not just N: A benchmark where both models always agree (very easy or very hard items) provides zero signal regardless of sample size. Detecting degradation requires enough discordant pairs.
• Temperature > 0 complicates things: Non-deterministic generation introduces additional variance. Average per-sample scores across multiple runs before applying the test, or use the seed-analysis approach from the paper.
• Does not diagnose root cause: The test tells you that degradation occurred and which benchmarks are affected, but not why. Pair with qualitative error analysis on the degradation-flip samples (where b=1) to understand failure modes.

Reference

Paper: Kübler et al., "When LLMs get significantly worse: A statistical approach to detect model degradations" (2026). arXiv:2602.10144

Look for: Algorithm 1 (exact one-sided McNemar test), Section 4 (three aggregation methods), and Section 5 (case study on Llama models with KV-cache quantization showing 0.3% degradation detection).

Implementation: github.com/amazon-science/LLM-Accuracy-Stats — integrates directly with lm-eval harness via aggregation_script.py.