← redevops.io $ python examples/consolidated_benchmark.py
Reproducible benchmark

v1 → v2, measured in both runtimes

One seeded, ground-truth retrieval simulation, run in the Python source-of-truth and the Go port. v2 adds calibrated per-passage relevance in the reward, grounded abstention, and a load-aware sizer that prunes the expensive stage. The two languages agree on every effect — the win is a property of the design, not one simulation.

Python — source of truthGo — port
Metricv1v2Δv1v2Δ
Learned-policy precision Share of served passages that are truly relevant, once the policy converges. v2's reward finally sees calibrated relevance instead of a coverage-biased judge.
py v1 67.6v2 82.2
67.6%82.2%▲ +14.6 84.6%95.9%▲ +11.3
Abstention recall Truly-unanswerable queries that v2 declines to answer. v1 has no abstention at all — it always answers.
py v1 0v2 100
0.0%100%▲ +100 0.0%100%▲ +100
False-abstain rate Answerable queries v2 wrongly declined — the cost of abstention. It stays at zero: the floor never fires on a good query. 0.0%0.0%— none 0.0%0.0%— none
Expensive-stage depth Passages sent to the costly rerank / synthesis stage from a deep k=8 arm. The survival-product sizer prunes the low-relevance tail before it is paid for.
py v1 8.0v2 3.0
8.003.00▼ −62% 8.003.00▼ −63%
Precision after the sizer Precision of what survives the gate. The passages the sizer removed were the wrong ones, so precision rises to 100%.
py v1 37.5v2 100
37.5%100%▲ +62.5 37.5%100%▲ +62.5
v1 baseline v2 · calibration · abstention · sizer ▲ improvement

Honest by construction The v2 additions are opt-in, so v2-with-flags-off is byte-for-byte v1 — the A/B is a flag toggle in one process, not two codebases.

40-seed average A single run is dominated by bandit exploration luck, so precision is averaged over 40 seeds; every number here is deterministic and reproducible.

β = 0.9 headline Precision is shown at the calibration-trust ceiling (shipped default 0.5); the lift grows monotonically with how much the reward trusts calibrated relevance.

Two runtimes, one methodology Absolute precision differs because each runtime uses its own strategy set — but both show a double-digit lift, full abstention, and a ~62% depth cut.

// ground-truth simulation · 600-query stream · precision measured on answerable, answered queries only · reproduce: github.com/redevops-io/context-runtime