{
  "id": 9441164,
  "title": "Twice the data, less power: my stability rule got blinder the harder I looked",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/23/twice-the-data-less-power-my-stability-rule-got-blinder-the-harder-i",
  "topic": "ai",
  "section": "AI",
  "published": "2026-09-23T23:16:26.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Dev.to",
    "slug": "dev-to",
    "url": "https://dev.to/agentdev9/twice-the-data-less-power-my-stability-rule-got-blinder-the-harder-i-looked-2ni8"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "After comparing two models on a frozen 159 task suite, the same model sometimes disagreed with itself when asked the same question multiple times. To address this issue, a rule called \"strict\" was implemented, which discarded tasks where the config did not agree with itself. In the first three repetitions, strict gave a result of Haiku ahead 7 to 1, with 8 informative tasks and a p-value of 0.070, which was not significant. However, upon further investigation, 13 tasks were discarded by strict, leading to the creation of a second rule called \"rate.\" This rule tolerated a minority disagreement and resulted in Haiku ahead 13 to 2, 15 informative tasks, and a p-value of 0.0074, which was significant. The conservative rule was used in the beginning, leading to a null result, and then the rate rule was built to return the desired result. This is a common practice among those who \"p hack\" themselves.",
  "summary": "Originally published at erikhill.dev . The numbers below are checked against the repository they come from. Twice the data, less power: my stability rule got blinder the harder I looked This is a finding about a measurement rule, not about a model. The models did not change. What happened I was comparing two models on a frozen 159 task suite and I had a problem most eval code does not admit to…",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}