News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 by drakythe on Monday November 09, 2026 @02:56PM (#50431003)
If I read your results correct it solved 5% more problems and used up between 3-5% fewer tokens, with a faster response time?
Re:Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 by ariwilson on Monday November 09, 2026 @03:04PM (#50431143)
Correct. But the 5% more solves and 3-5% fewer tokens are within the noise of previous eval runs I've done on models. The faster response time is not.
Re:Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 by Spivak on Monday November 09, 2026 @03:20PM (#50431405)
Someone using an actual statistical test to quantify if there's actual measurable improvement?! An angel among men.
Re:Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 by jerkstate on Monday November 09, 2026 @03:48PM (#50431880)
from my basic stats knowledge, it's not reliable to calculate the confidence interval of the sample proportion with fewer than about 10 samples on both sides. So if you're only seeing 1 or 2 failures in 20, and that approximately held as you scaled, you would have to run about 200 tests with each in order to get at least 10 failures in order to calculate the confidence intervals of the two samples and see if they overlap or not.
Re:Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 by disgruntledphd2 on Monday November 09, 2026 @04:03PM (#50432094)
And this is why not many people do this. Even if you have the decals and the statistical knowledge, it's pretty expensive to do this regularly.
Re:Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 by astro1234 on Monday November 09, 2026 @03:23PM (#50431441)
Uncertainty from count statistics are far larger than this. These are two perfectly consistent results there’s no statsig difference