Unverified50% confidenceFactExact time
The example sentence quoted in the article, "outperforms the best baseline costing no more at none of six operating points and a permuted placebo at none of three, with gains up to about 1.5 not excluded", stacks multiple negations and conditions, making it impossible for readers to judge the experimental conclusion.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/18/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedAlmost all useful optimization value is concentrated in the reflection/control slot, whose leave-one-in gain is as high as +0.119, while the independent contributions of the other three slots are nearly zero.68% similarUnverifiedThe metric truly worth tracking is cost per correct answer, because it is the only metric that cannot be optimized by failing more quietly.65% similarUnverifiedSetting an absolute failure count ceiling for small-sample slices is more robust than setting a percentage threshold and is insensitive to sample size62% similarUnverifiedOn the same benchmark, taking the best run versus taking the average can differ by 2.6 percentage points; Simular's data shows 0.7674 by the first clean run and 0.7938 by the best run.62% similarUnverifiedIn the specific experimental case, the overlapping-anchor scheme (n=912) showed the model at 55.2% versus the majority class at 51.1%, a net advantage of +4.1pp, about 2.4 standard errors; the non-overlapping-anchor scheme (n=163) showed 59.5% versus 54.0%, a net advantage of +5.5pp, about 1.4 standard errors.62% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1057319API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1057319MCP
get_claim(id=1057319)