On a 200-item synthetic probe whose answers depend on preserving or inspecting the model's own control-literal text, nameless tokenization achieved 59.9% overall accuracy versus 8.5% for standard tokenization, 2.2% for stripping, 23.0% for masking, and 24.1% for escaping, while also leading each of the four independent probe columns.

On a 200-item synthetic probe whose answers depend on preserving or inspecting the model's own control-literal text, nameless tokenization achieved 59.9% overall accuracy versus 8.5% for standard tokenization, 2.2% for stripping, 23.0% for masking, and 24.1% for escaping, while also leading each of the four independent probe columns. · CiteArk

Measurement results

0/26 assessed

0 supported0 disputed or conflicting26 not assessed

The complete result group stays with its claim. Assessed rows come first; their judgments do not replace the whole-claim conclusion. Expand a row for conditions, sources, and evidence history.

Each row is a measurement with its reported value, latest available observation, and cumulative evidence state.
Metric and conditions	Reported	Latest observation	Evidence judgment
	200 items	—	Not assessed
defense: None · question: Copy	6.8%	—	Not assessed
defense: None · question: First	20%	—	Not assessed
defense: None · question: Count	6.4%	—	Not assessed
defense: None · question: Redact	0.8%	—	Not assessed
defense: None · question: All	8.5%	—	Not assessed
defense: Strip · question: Copy	0%	—	Not assessed
defense: Strip · question: First	8.8%	—	Not assessed
defense: Strip · question: Count	0%	—	Not assessed
defense: Strip · question: Redact	0%	—	Not assessed
defense: Strip · question: All	2.2%	—	Not assessed
defense: Mask · question: Copy	0%	—	Not assessed

Reported and observed measurements

Assessments (0)

Runs (0)

Measurement results