Unverified50% confidenceOpinionExact time
The author acknowledges evaluation limitations: the questions came from a single dataset, and the agent was modified after seeing it fail on these questions, so numbers would be lower on new questions.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/18/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedWhen a reviewer rejects a paper on the grounds of data scale, two situations must be distinguished: the method itself requires large data to be effective (a legitimate flaw) versus the reviewer simply expecting large-scale experiments (a one-dimensional evaluation standard).74% similarUnverifiedThe question asked when evaluating an agent must be the same question that needs to be answered at deployment; otherwise, benchmarks will miss the real failure modes.72% similarUnverifiedQuestions buried in long reports are easy to overlook; an effective approach is to put the question on the first line rather than the last, and to complete the parts that do not depend on the answer first.71% similarUnverifiedAt present, attribution analysis of self-improving agents is still very difficult, making it hard to accurately distinguish whether a failure originates from model reasoning, observation of the environment state, or tool interface problems.70% similarUnverifiedThe idea of error decorrelation draws from classical theory in ensemble learning, where the independence of errors among weak classifiers is more determinative of the ensemble's performance ceiling than the accuracy of any individual classifier.70% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1057842API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1057842MCP
get_claim(id=1057842)