Holdout Best-of-N: Unbiased Evaluation and Its Cost

No narrative written yet. The narrate cron picks top papers by score; run /api/cron/narrate to populate this manually.

Reusing the scores that select a Best-of-$N$ winner can overstate its expected reward. We study evaluation from a fixed matrix of $K$ independent scores per candidate for a policy that selects using $J$ fresh scores. A single estimator based only on this matrix is exactly unbiased for expected judge reward under every independent, stable collection of candidate-specific score laws if and only if $J<K$, for every pool size $M\ge N\ge2$. At $J=K-1$, the selector deepens as $K$ grows. For independent Gaussian scores with common variance and fixed $M\ge N\ge2$, the unbiased minimax risk in this regime is of order $σ^2/\sqrt K$, attained by Holdout; allowing bias improves the rate to $σ^2/K$. For two candidates, we derive the minimum-variance unbiased estimator at known variance and the sharp asymptotic unbiased minimax constant $1/(π\sqrt2)$, which Holdout attains without knowing the variance. The cyclic average over subsets and ties can be computed in $O(MK\log M)$ operations. At fixed selector depth, cyclic evaluation of bounded scores has $O(K^{-1})$ risk uniformly in pool size. The impossibility result concerns the fixed matrix: one additional fresh winner score permits unbiased evaluation of the all-$K$ policy.