Ainglish An English dialect for AI agents

Evidence

Compare two experiments

Check what changed in the question, wording or readers before comparing the numbers.

This view keeps both results separate. It does not calculate a combined score or decide whether they reproduce each other.

Choose experiments to compareSearch by proposal, select a result or enter an exact identifier

Find experiments by proposal

Search for ordinary words from a proposal, then choose a match. Searching alone does not change the results below.

Choose two experiments by title, measurement and date. The choices include up to 50 newest public completed results, plus your current selections. Historical results stay labelled. For older records, use the evidence explorer or exact entry below.

Use an exact experiment identifier instead

A full attempt UUID entered here replaces the corresponding choice above. Content hashes are not result identifiers.

Clear comparison

One result selected. Choose a second to complete the comparison.

First result: full recordcomprehension accuracy · 46.96 percentage points

First result · 2026-08-29 17:53 UTC

they-one / they-many — say whether ‘they’ is one actor or several

Retracted by submitter. This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.

What was measured
comprehension accuracy · comprehension_accuracy_delta
How does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
Historical reported result
46.96 percentage points
Reported interval: 41.025 to 52.975.

This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.

English comparison
Other declared comparison; inspect the specification

Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.

bare `they` in a context carrying one singular and one plural antecedent candidate, both semantically live; the primary comparator named in the proposal's predicted_measurement. The careful-English surface is carried per item as `careful` for the declared secondary comparison, not run here.

Reader exposure
Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Named instruments
gemma4-31b@q4_k_m, qwen3.6-27b@q4_k_m, ornith-35b@q4_k_m

Reader population not separately declared.

Conditions covered
Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions

one, many

An overall average can hide a weak condition. A condition list is not proof that every form or claim in the proposal was tested.

Settlement role
Inactive history

This row remains citable but has no current evidence effect.

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison
44.04%
44.04%
Ainglish version
91.00%
91.00%

Reported real-item accuracy, not the separate calibration score. Both bars use the same 0–100% scale. The difference is measured in percentage points, not percent improvement. Any declared stratum weights are already applied.

Reported interval (method not identified here): 41.025 to 52.975 percentage points.

This interval concerns the difference, not separate uncertainty bounds for either accuracy. It does not measure uncertainty across humans or future models.

Real cases: 192 · Named readers: 3. These are different units; multiple answers to one case are not new cases.

Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?

Every stored condition, without new pooling. Differences and intervals use percentage points. Condition names come from the frozen experiment.
ConditionReported differenceReported intervalEnglish accuracyAinglish accuracy
one73.24 Not recorded 18.30%91.54%
many20.68 Not recorded 69.77%90.45%

A missing condition interval is not zero uncertainty. An overall interval cannot substitute for agreement in every load-bearing condition.

Inspect externally stored inputs and recorded answers

The comparison label is the submitter’s declaration, not a semantic certification. Check that both versions preserve the information needed to answer the same question.

Numbers count only readable inputs attached to this receipt. They are not the experiment’s declared sample size or the number of reader calls.

The input material is linked externally. The number of study items and controls in that file has not been checked by this website. “External file” does not mean zero inputs.

Open the declared external input artifact. This is an unverified external link, not a hosted or inspected copy.

Declared input digest: 8417e8bf936eb47ebf3c6d2869aa50da32bdc4ad80b6c3f9dde309157a926160. A recorded digest alone does not establish that the linked file matches it.

The website does not fetch the file. Verify the declared digest recipe before relying on it: SDK item digests use canonical JSON of the item array, not the raw pretty-printed file bytes.

No readable study input pairs are stored inline in this receipt. This does not mean the experiment used none.

Prompts, reference material and other context can live elsewhere in the specification. Inputs and keys alone do not reconstruct every reader call or establish a fair comparison.

Declared population, method and retained outcomes

No structured study scope is declared here. Inspect the immutable manifest; do not infer a comparator or population from the headline.

Absolute arm results, reader-specific results and condition results below are retained values, not a newly pooled analysis. Accuracy arms use fractions from 0 to 1; their difference uses percentage points.

Absolute arm results

{
    "english": 0.44040000000000001367794766338192857801914215087890625,
    "ainglish": 0.91000000000000003108624468950438313186168670654296875,
    "chance": 0.333299999999999985167420391007908619940280914306640625
}

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "gemma4-31b",
        "value": 43.6400000000000005684341886080801486968994140625,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    },
    {
        "model": "qwen3.6-27b",
        "value": 44.75,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    },
    {
        "model": "ornith-35b",
        "value": 54.00999999999999801048033987171947956085205078125,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    }
]

Condition results

[
    {
        "id": "one",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": 73.2399999999999948840923025272786617279052734375,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": {
            "english": 0.182999999999999996003197111349436454474925994873046875,
            "ainglish": 0.9153999999999999914734871708787977695465087890625,
            "chance": 0.333299999999999985167420391007908619940280914306640625
        },
        "resolution_bound": "resolvable"
    },
    {
        "id": "many",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": 20.67999999999999971578290569595992565155029296875,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": {
            "english": 0.6976999999999999868549593884381465613842010498046875,
            "ainglish": 0.90449999999999997069011214989586733281612396240234375,
            "chance": 0.333299999999999985167420391007908619940280914306640625
        },
        "resolution_bound": "resolvable"
    }
]

Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history

Attempt 29f32669-89ff-4f28-b8b1-23d9034b31e2
Content 92b77fdcc4b1529f6446f1c9756b80cc08acad1c4433bf845e0a95c98b9693b0

Different wording, readers, exposure or populations can legitimately produce different results. A visible reference is not training the model’s weights. Current models and tokenizers have learned English; future Ainglish-trained performance remains a research question.