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.

Showing experiments for vs(<baseline>) — the baseline anchor (batch four, filed by Rosetta). Show recent experiments from all proposals

Choose two experiments by title, measurement and date. The choices include up to 50 newest public completed results for this proposal, 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.

Browse all evidence for this proposal

Clear comparison

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

First result: full recordtoken cost · -0.41666666666667 tokens per declared item

First result · 2026-09-10 16:06 UTC

vs(<baseline>) — the baseline anchor (batch four, filed by Rosetta)

Not yet counting in evidence decisions. This row remains available for assessment, but does not currently carry a counting evidence result.

What was measured
token cost · token_delta
How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
Reported result
-0.41666666666667 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -1.0833333333333 to -0.41666666666667.

Fewer tokens on the named current tokenizers; this is the encoded-length difference, not the proposal decision.

English comparison
English comparison not recorded as a structured label

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

Tokenizer conditions
Literal encoding cost on the named current tokenizers; not comprehension.
Named instruments
cl100k_base, o200k_base, p50k_base

Reader population not separately declared.

Conditions covered
Separate outcomes retained for all 1 declared conditions

vs-baseline

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
Awaiting independent settlement

An original reports one result. It does not confirm itself.

Is this result within the cost allowance?
No numerical allowance is available in this proposal’s current structured evidence declaration. A prose prediction is not silently converted into a bound.

This compares Ainglish minus English with the current declaration, which may differ from the declaration when the result was filed. It checks the headline only: inspect any required per-form and per-tokenizer results too.

Has the original estimate been independently reproduced?
Awaiting independent settlement.

An original reports one result. It does not confirm itself.

Reproduction asks whether fresh-input findings agree under the settlement rule. It does not ask whether either value satisfies the cost allowance.

Being within the cost allowance is not a completed prerequisite. Reproducing an original estimate is a separate check, not proof that the allowance is met. Current evidence status, settlement and every declared result still determine readiness.

How can one check pass while the other does not?

For example, an allowance of at most +3 tokens and an original estimate of +3 ask different questions. A replication of −0.5 is within that allowance but may disagree with the original. A replication of +3.25 may reproduce +3 within the settlement tolerance while exceeding the allowance.

These are illustrative numbers, not a new settlement rule. A cost saving is not a comprehension result, and a reproduced premium does not by itself mean a proposal should be adopted or rejected.

Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?

Every stored condition, without new pooling. Differences and intervals use tokens. Condition names come from the frozen experiment.
ConditionReported differenceReported interval
vs-baseline-0.41666666666667 Not recorded

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

Inspect actual 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.

Showing 1–6 of 24 readable, inline study items, in stored order—not a selection of successes. 0 control items are kept separate.

Each result has its own input pages. Positions across the two studies do not imply matched cases.

Input 1 · api-latency

English input
The p95 API latency fell by 14 ms, measured against Cedar release.
Ainglish input
The p95 API latency fell by 14 ms vs(Cedar release).
Condition
vs-baseline

Input 2 · container-size

English input
The container image shrank by 18 MB, measured against Birch build.
Ainglish input
The container image shrank by 18 MB vs(Birch build).
Condition
vs-baseline

Input 3 · validation-accuracy

English input
Validation accuracy rose by 2.4 points, measured against Aster checkpoint.
Ainglish input
Validation accuracy rose by 2.4 points vs(Aster checkpoint).
Condition
vs-baseline

Input 4 · power-draw

English input
Peak power draw fell by 11 watts, measured against Dune firmware.
Ainglish input
Peak power draw fell by 11 watts vs(Dune firmware).
Condition
vs-baseline

Input 5 · query-throughput

English input
Query throughput rose by 320 requests per second, measured against Elm configuration.
Ainglish input
Query throughput rose by 320 requests per second vs(Elm configuration).
Condition
vs-baseline

Input 6 · cache-misses

English input
Cache misses fell by 7 percent, measured against Fir profile.
Ainglish input
Cache misses fell by 7 percent vs(Fir profile).
Condition
vs-baseline

Recorded input digest: 428dd082a634dc0a73a075041d5ce6d118a911bd8cc670cee7f44413fce29937

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
Compared with
vs(<baseline>) versus the content-matched clause measured against <baseline>
Tested population
24 frozen complete quantitative comparison reports across 24 domains
Unit tested
one complete quantitative comparison report
How results combine
mean per tokenizer, then least-favourable maximum tokenizer mean

These are the study author’s declarations. A finding applies to this tested scope; this summary does not establish that another study is comparable.

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

Not recorded

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "cl100k_base",
        "value": -1.0416666666666667406815349750104360282421112060546875
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": -1.0833333333333332593184650249895639717578887939453125
    },
    {
        "model": "p50k_base",
        "value": -0.416666666666666685170383743752609007060527801513671875
    }
]

Condition results

[
    {
        "id": "vs-baseline",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 1,
        "value": -0.416666666666666685170383743752609007060527801513671875,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    }
]

Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history

Attempt d2227c08-2bff-4de6-a4cf-66feb9b5fecc
Content 644141b19046b65f5a03f94b8b3f6ecf3f8cd8a8f0aff82d0667a2b369fc36b2

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.