Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History

README.md

Volo benchmarks

Tier-2 fidelity

Question: when an agent hits an input it never recorded, how faithfully does Volo's simulated environment reproduce what the live run would have done — and does it ever make something up?

Method (deterministic, seeded — see ADR-0010 in the bible): record 2 seed queries to build the Tier-1 cache, derive 20 held-out queries by mutating the seeds with a fixed RNG (so none are in the cache), then run each held-out query both live and under a simulated environment and compare final outputs by canonical-JSON equality.

Each query lands in one of three buckets:

  • identical — sim matched the live run (good),
  • flagged — sim refused (Tier2Miss/ReplayMiss) because it couldn't faithfully answer (safe),
  • wrong — sim returned a different answer (the unsafe outcome we must never produce).

fidelity = identical / N.

Results (research_agent, N = 20)

Configuration Fidelity Identical Flagged Wrong
Tier-1 only (cache replay) 20% 4 16 0
Tier-2 (a) — constrained-gen only 20% 4 16 0
Tier-2 (a)+(b) — source-informed 100% 20 0 0

The number that matters is the last column: Wrong = 0 everywhere. Plain cache-replay can only answer inputs it has already seen (it flags the rest); source-informed Tier-2 reconstructs the un-recorded answers faithfully and hits 100% — and in no configuration does the simulator fabricate a tool result. That flag-on-unknown invariant is the core of Volo's trust model.

The (a)-only row is the pure cache-hit floor because Ollama isn't wired in this offline run; with a local model it rises above the floor. The benchmark is offline and deterministic so it reproduces identically on any machine.

Run it

uv run python benchmarks/fidelity.py

Writes machine-readable results to benchmarks/results.json. The script exits non-zero if any configuration ever produces a wrong answer — so this doubles as a guardrail, not just a report.