{"version":"credence/0.1","note":"Claims ranked by the value of checking them: (use + 1/2) x credence x (1 - credence). Replicate the top ones.","frontier":[{"id":"ecd:2609.qeh0ha","title":"Refitting the Chinchilla parametric scaling law to its reconstructed data: the coefficients do not replicate, the headline does","dependents":0,"claim":"ecd:2609.qeh0ha#C2","text":"The fit is specification-dominated: a C>=1e19 FLOP cutoff (192 points) gives alpha=0.378, beta=0.265, E=1.72, close to the original, and the implied allocation exponent moves from 0.35 to 0.56 across cutoffs, so sampling-based intervals understate the true uncertainty","credence":0.770553,"status":"unchecked","valueOfChecking":0.088401},{"id":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw","title":"Streak selection bias and the GVT re-analysis: an independent check of Miller & Sanjurjo (2018)","dependents":0,"claim":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw#C10","text":"Calibrated against those null panels, only 0.2% reach the observed corrected z of 2.91, so the parent's conclusion of significant streak shooting in GVT's data survives the calibration.","credence":0.770553,"status":"unchecked","valueOfChecking":0.088401},{"id":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw","title":"Streak selection bias and the GVT re-analysis: an independent check of Miller & Sanjurjo (2018)","dependents":0,"claim":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw#C8","text":"The parent's footnote-26 SE of the mean is 4.3pp with conditional-proportion variances, or 4.6pp with null variances (parent: 4.7pp); z>=2.7 and one-sided p<0.01 either way.","credence":0.770553,"status":"unchecked","valueOfChecking":0.088401},{"id":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw","title":"Streak selection bias and the GVT re-analysis: an independent check of Miller & Sanjurjo (2018)","dependents":0,"claim":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw#C9","text":"Under 4000 simulated panels of i.i.d. shooters with GVT's n_i and p_i, the corrected one-sided normal test rejects 7.4% at nominal 5% and 1.5% at nominal 1%: mildly anti-conservative.","credence":0.770553,"status":"unchecked","valueOfChecking":0.088401},{"id":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw","title":"Streak selection bias and the GVT re-analysis: an independent check of Miller & Sanjurjo (2018)","dependents":0,"claim":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw#C4","text":"For n=100, p=0.5, k=5 the exact $E[\\hat P_5]$ is 0.3649 (bias -0.135), not .35 (-0.15) as stated in the parent's text; DP agrees with enumeration (n<=16) and with Monte Carlo (0.3649 +/- 0.0002). The qualitative claim is unaffected.","credence":0.782295,"status":"unchecked","valueOfChecking":0.085155},{"id":"ecd:2609.qeh0ha","title":"Refitting the Chinchilla parametric scaling law to its reconstructed data: the coefficients do not replicate, the headline does","dependents":0,"claim":"ecd:2609.qeh0ha#C1","text":"On the full 245-point reconstructed dataset, the Approach-3 refit gives alpha=0.349, beta=0.453, E=1.89; Hoffmann et al.'s central estimates (alpha=0.34, beta=0.28, E=1.69) lie outside the 90% bootstrap intervals of this refit","credence":0.790055,"status":"unchecked","valueOfChecking":0.082934},{"id":"ecd:2609.qeh0ha","title":"Refitting the Chinchilla parametric scaling law to its reconstructed data: the coefficients do not replicate, the headline does","dependents":0,"claim":"ecd:2609.qeh0ha#C3","text":"Under every specification tried the compute-optimal allocation exponent stays far below the ~0.73 implied by Kaplan et al., so the Chinchilla conclusion that data must scale roughly in step with parameters survives replication even though its published coefficients do not","credence":0.790055,"status":"unchecked","valueOfChecking":0.082934},{"id":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw","title":"Streak selection bias and the GVT re-analysis: an independent check of Miller & Sanjurjo (2018)","dependents":0,"claim":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw#C11","text":"On Table 2's rounded data, GVT's raw paired t-test gives t=0.70 (two-sided p=0.49); the bias-adjusted paired t-test gives t=2.61 (one-sided p=0.008), consistent with the parent's p<.05.","credence":0.790055,"status":"unchecked","valueOfChecking":0.082934},{"id":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw","title":"Streak selection bias and the GVT re-analysis: an independent check of Miller & Sanjurjo (2018)","dependents":0,"claim":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw#C7","text":"Using a fixed-hit permutation null instead of a Bernoulli null changes the mean adjusted difference by under 0.2 percentage points (+12.5).","credence":0.790055,"status":"unchecked","valueOfChecking":0.082934},{"id":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw","title":"Streak selection bias and the GVT re-analysis: an independent check of Miller & Sanjurjo (2018)","dependents":0,"claim":"ecd:2610.3qjqtw#C5","text":"Recomputing each player's bias under Bernoulli($\\hat p_i$, $n_i$), k=3, reproduces the parent's Table 2 bias-adjusted column within 0.01 for all 25 players with defined differences.","credence":0.801594,"status":"unchecked","valueOfChecking":0.079521}]}