INSTRUMENT · EVAL
Wilson and Clopper-Pearson Pass-Rate Confidence Interval Calculator
Turn an eval pass rate (k of n) into a defensible confidence interval: Wilson score, Clopper-Pearson exact, and Wald normal bounds side by side.
Showing your last valid result. Update the inputs above to recompute.
Wilson score interval
21.9% to 39.6%
95% two-sided. Observed rate 30.0% (30 of 100), interval width 17.7 pts.
All three methods, same inputs
| Method | Lower | Upper | Width |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wilson score | 21.9% | 39.6% | 17.7 pts |
| Clopper-Pearson (exact) | 21.2% | 40.0% | 18.7 pts |
| Wald (normal) | 21.0% | 39.0% | 18.0 pts |
Wilson: (p̂ + z²/2n ± z·√(p̂(1−p̂)/n + z²/4n²)) / (1 + z²/n)How?
How this is calculated
This tool reports a Wilson score interval by default: the range that brackets the true pass rate p behind an observed c passes in n independent runs, at the confidence level you pick. It also shows the Clopper-Pearson exact interval and the Wald normal approximation on the same inputs, so you can see where they agree and where they part.
Every method assumes each run is an independent Bernoulli trial at one fixed pass probability. That is the binomial model behind an eval confidence interval. The point estimate c/n is one draw from that distribution; the interval is the width around it that the evidence supports.
Wilson score interval (the default). With z the two-sided normal quantile for your confidence level, the interval centers and margins are:
center = (p̂ + z²/2n) / (1 + z²/n)
margin = (z / (1 + z²/n)) · √(p̂(1−p̂)/n + z²/4n²)
Worked example, c = 30, n = 100, 95% (z ≈ 1.9600, p̂ = 0.30, z² = 3.8415): center = (0.30 + 3.8415/200) / (1 + 3.8415/100) = 0.31921 / 1.03841 = 0.3074; margin = (1.9600 / 1.03841) · √(0.30·0.70/100 + 3.8415/40000) = 1.8875 · √0.0021960 = 1.8875 · 0.046862 = 0.0884. The interval is 0.3074 ± 0.0884, or 21.9% to 39.6%. Wilson stays inside 0% and 100% and returns a real width even at a 0% or 100% observed rate, which is why it is the default here.
Clopper-Pearson exact interval. The bounds are Beta quantiles, so the interval has at least the nominal coverage (it errs wide rather than narrow):
lower = BetaInv(α/2; c, n−c+1), upper = BetaInv(1−α/2; c+1, n−c), α = 1 − confidence
For the same c = 30, n = 100, 95% case: lower = BetaInv(0.025; 30, 71) = 0.2124, upper = BetaInv(0.975; 31, 70) = 0.3998, or 21.2% to 40.0%. Report this when you need a guaranteed-coverage bound and can accept a wider interval.
Wald normal approximation. The textbook bound is
p̂ ± z·√(p̂(1−p̂)/n), which for c = 30, n = 100, 95% gives
0.30 ± 0.0898, or 21.0% to 39.0%. It is shown for contrast and carries a guard.
The Wald interval collapses to a single point at a 0% or 100% observed rate, and
it can fall outside 0% to 100%. This tool flags it as unreliable when either the
observed passes or the observed failures fall below 10, the success-failure count
condition. That floor of 10 is a common convention; Brown, Cai and DasGupta (2001)
show Wald coverage stays erratic even at large n for rates near 0 or 1, so treat
the floor as a minimum rather than a guarantee.
What the confidence level means, and what it assumes. A 95% two-sided interval is a frequentist statement about the procedure: across many repeated suites, about 95% of the intervals it builds would contain the true rate. It is not a 95% probability that this one interval holds the true rate. The binomial model also assumes runs are independent and identically distributed. Correlated seeds, a shared prompt, or a heterogeneous task mix break that assumption, and the real uncertainty is then wider than any bound here. Add the run-to-run spread from independent seeds on top of the task-set width this tool computes.
Formula: Wilson: (p̂ + z²/2n ± z·√(p̂(1−p̂)/n + z²/4n²)) / (1 + z²/n)
Questions
Which interval should I report?
Report the Wilson score interval as the default. It behaves well at small run counts and at rates near 0% or 100%, the regime where eval pass rates often sit. Use the Clopper-Pearson exact interval when you need coverage that is guaranteed to meet the nominal level and can accept a wider bound. Read the Wald column as a teaching contrast at large n away from the edges, and heed the guard when it appears.
What does 95% confidence actually mean?
It describes the procedure, not this single interval. If you re-ran the whole evaluation many times and built a 95% interval each time, about 95% of those intervals would contain the true pass rate. The one interval in front of you either contains it or does not. Reporting the interval next to the rate keeps a headline number honest about how much evidence stands behind it.
When is the Wald (normal) interval safe to use?
Only when both the observed passes and the observed failures clear a count of about 10, and the rate sits away from 0% and 100%. At a 0% or 100% observed rate the Wald interval collapses to zero width and reports no uncertainty exactly where the rate is most extreme, so this tool steers you to Wilson or Clopper-Pearson there.
Sources
- Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference (Wilson score interval)
- The Use of Confidence or Fiducial Limits Illustrated in the Case of the Binomial (Clopper-Pearson interval)
- Interval Estimation for a Binomial Proportion (Wilson vs Wald coverage)
- NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods: Confidence Limits for a Proportion