Unverified50% confidenceFactExact time
The experiment used only a single random seed, the evaluation set contained only 200 questions, and the corpus was built from the context paragraphs of the selected questions, so the scores cannot be directly compared with published Search-R1 benchmark results.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Medium-term (~90 days)
Relevance
10/20/2026
First Seen
Valid until: 1/18/2027
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedThe experiment has a small sample size (single model, single test, 50 questions), is subject to random fluctuation, and constitutes a heuristic finding rather than a definitive conclusion.73% similarUnverifiedThe sample size of this comparison experiment is limited: each question was asked twice, so the actual number of distinct questions covered is only about 14, and a single correct or incorrect answer greatly perturbs the conclusion.70% similarUnverifiedIn benchmarks, the prototype system requires 3-5 times fewer annotations than random sampling because acquisition is concentrated on borderline cases.67% similarUnverifiedThe original buggy version of the billing function used in testing passed only 138 of 215 tests, while the fixed version passes all 215 (15 hand-written edge cases plus 200 random cases).67% similarUnverifiedEach model answered 112 questions (7 flaw types × 2 versions × 4 repetitions × 2 conditions), with half flawed and half sound, and a model that mechanically answered 'none' would receive a baseline score of 0.50.66% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1074536API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1074536MCP
get_claim(id=1074536)