Nine Bugs in My Own Evaluation Harness. Every One Made My Results Look Better.
I built an evaluation harness. I found nine bugs in it. Every single one would have made my results look better than they were. Nine out of nine, all pointing the same way. That is not a coincidence, and I do not think it is specific to me or to my project. I think it is a structural problem with any evaluation you build for yourself. Here is the mechanism, before any of the evidence. Debugging…
A researcher discovered nine bugs while testing their evaluation harness, and each bug made their results look better. These bugs all had the same effect of improving the outcomes. The researcher concluded that this is not a coincidence, but rather a structural problem inherent in self-evaluation. The findings suggest that the debugging process is triggered by surprising results, and when the results are disappointing, the researcher becomes more vigilant in checking the setup and running the tests again.
However, when the results are positive, the researcher does not put in the same effort, as nothing feels wrong. The evaluation harness has a built-in filter that removes measurement bugs from the work, and this filter is applied unevenly. It is more aggressive against results the researcher dislikes and more lenient against results they like.
This leads to a drift in the instrument, resulting in biased findings that favor the researcher's work. The researcher argues that this is not due to dishonesty but rather the design of the evaluation process itself.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
