Cost-accuracy Pareto frontiers have become the standard way to compare large language model agents, displacing scalar accuracy. The plot has been adopted; the statistics have not. A published frontier is a point estimate of a random set, yet it is drawn and read as though observed, with no interval, no membership probability, and typically a single rollout per task. We formalize frontier reporting as an estimation problem and give an estimator: a bootstrap over the correct resampling unit, membership and dominance probabilities in place of binary flags, a Hausdorff confidence band for the frontier as a curve, and a split-sample correction for selection bias. We validate it against known ground truth across ten generative families, then on real per-task results from 135 agent submissions to SWE-bench Verified (including per-task cost for 38 models under one harness), Terminal-Bench 2.0 (58 submissions, 5 runs/task), and tau^2-Bench (26 submission-domain pairs, 4 runs/task with dollar cost). Four results stand out: (1) Uncertainty quantification changes conclusions: in simulation at five rollouts per task, 17.6% of naive "X dominates Y" claims are false, reduced to 1.3% by certification; on the real frontier, 27% of such claims are not supported at P >= 0.9. (2) The natural two-stage bootstrap over tasks and seeds double-counts within-cell variance and over-covers, with a 1/S signature identifying the cause. (3) Real task suites are clustered: on SWE-bench Verified, respecting repositories widens accuracy intervals 1.94x; task-level resampling covers only 0.654 for generalizing to new repos, while clustering whole repos achieves 0.927. On the leaderboard, only 9 of 105 adjacent rank orderings are supported at P >= 0.9. (4) Neither cost axis is universally valid: mean cost fails under heavy-tailed difficulty, while median cost carries small-seed bias. We release an open implementation that consumes (config, task, seed, success, cost) tuples from any harness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harish Mashetty (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: