main
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
  vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
862feaff86 |
Revision 1, step 1: one scoring criterion, the correct order, and the internal inconsistencies.
Point 1. The base step's order is Muller's 1.839, not 2: the derivative of the parabola through
the last three points errs by f'''/6 (x_n - x_{n-1})(x_n - x_{n-2}) = O(e_{n-1} e_{n-2}).
order_high_precision.py (3000 digits, to 1e-2900): 1.840 on cos x - x, e^x - 2, x^3 - x - 2,
sin x - 1/2; 2.000 only on x^2 - 2; two-point 1.618. The double-precision medians (2.000, 1.94)
are removed from the text.
Point 3. Every protocol number is re-scored under the criterion of section 9 - a sign change
within 1e-6 or f(x) == 0. rescore_uniform.py re-runs all 2779 distinct configurations of the 25
protocol sweeps on APS and CHA (the runs did not keep x) -> sweep_uniform.json, same row format;
it reproduces the APS/CHA lines of Table 10 exactly (built-in check). verify_article.py,
audit_similarity_places.py and the gap diagnostics read the re-scored data; the multiplier and
endowment measurements score by the same criterion. Table 7 (two criteria side by side) is gone;
7.3 now explains why the criterion is a sign change. Consequences stated in the text: the base
rule 2634 / 2357 against Chandrupatla 2595 / 1505 (1.5% behind on APS, no longer "level"); A'
2259 / 1074 (12.9% and 28.6% below Chandrupatla); the defect reading 2351 is second to the
shape reading 2337, not the record; the remembered analogy is level with no regime (2633 vs
2634) under this criterion; Table 9a's range is 19% to 425%.
Point 8. report_sweep.head_to_head counts every problem, failures charged (it counted only the
problems both methods solved, which is why Table 8 rows summed to 153 and 40). Family-level
comparisons added (A' vs Chandrupatla 8/1/6 of 15 and 7/0/2 of 9 families, not significant), and
an independence paragraph in section 9.
Point 11. sweep_itp.py: ITP (recommended constants and per-problem oracle) on all six corpora ->
Table 10; behind A' on every corpus, 0 bound violations.
Points 7, 9, 10 and the internals: the 2x bound is ours, not the rivals' promise; the law
predicts the group order only; "outside the proven bracket" explained (narrowest bracket of all
observed signs); 7.4's fun1 paragraph corrected (five costs under safe; the unguarded numbers
belong to fun1.4, fun1.5 and to fun3.1, fun5.1 separately); Table 1's last cell; the corpus-4
composition and odd multiplicities stated, also in the abstract.
build_tex.py: pdflatex output decoded with errors="replace" (a UTF-8 character cut by TeX's log
wrap crashed the build). Table 10 column widths rebalanced.
Checks: verify_article on the server 500 OK / 0 BAD (467 existing with the new values, 33 new);
regression x2 on the server 1232 passed, 0 failed; PDF 28 pages, 0 errors, 0 undefined, 0 overfull.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
1b6c626f67 |
Valeri's decisions (1) competitors from the library, (2) variant a. (1) Chandrupatla is scipy.optimize.elementwise.find_root, Brent is brentq, no more per-problem best_of. Our Chandrupatla stopped on a bracket twice as wide as every other method (the factor the protocol corrects for ITP); fixed (+0.5*xtol) in baselines.py and in the two copies found by grep (stage16_blend, stage19_modern) and the traced mirror, and pinned: ours == library on every problem. Regenerating sweep_full.json changed exactly three rows - chandrupatla APS 2785->2787, CHA 2423->2441, brent CHA 4099->4115 - and nothing else (diff_sweeps.py: 0 unexpected).
(2) The proposed method is again the scheduled projection (2806/3220/6026), its budget multiplier DECLARED as the one free constant: the canonical total is the same for every multiplier 1.25-4, the wide-bracket one is not. The earned projection is the constant-free variant (3568/3020/6588). What the old tables hid: problem by problem the proposed rule beats Chandrupatla on the canonical set 87/24/42, exact sign test p = 9e-5, while trailing him by 0.7% in total; on the wide-bracket set he is genuinely stronger (26 to 9, p = 0.006). Gap decomposition recomputed with the library: 244 (was 262), 160 of it on the flat families (two thirds), fun1 58 (a quarter, not a third as the abstract said). Also corrected on the way: the 'subsumed by Chandrupatla' pin claimed he is better on the worst single problem - true only with the looser tolerance (84 against the credit rule's 83 once fixed); §8.3 still called zero slack degenerate, which Table 1a refutes; §5.2's Brent figure is our pure-Python implementation and now says so. verify_article.py 286/286, 802 tests pass twice. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
de1f8f726d |
The new sections move into the canonical text, article/sim_numerics.md (Valeri's decision): section 7 'Where the similarity is read' with 7.1 per-place similarity, 7.2 the decision place, 7.3 the fun7 scoring artefact, 7.4 the gap decomposition; negative results 8-11 appended so items 1-7 keep their numbers; abstract paragraph; Future work rewritten (the refuted log transform removed); item 6 now says aps.13.00 is a scoring artefact, not a method failure. Translated into the .md's revised names: code 'ratio' = the tent max(0,1-|z|), code 'rational' = the ratio similarity 1/(1+|z|); the proposed method stays the .md's (tent, 3-point, projection).
Found on the way: negative item 'log change of variable' compared 3474 with 4516, the total of a DIFFERENT configuration; the honest pair is the same configuration in x, CHA 3643 -> 3474, APS 5822 -> 6940. Fixed in both texts. The gap-decomposition numbers were only traced to saved logs; they are now RECOMPUTED by verify_article.py from fresh runs of the diagnosis scripts (which return their values): 216 checks OK on Linux, 762 tests pass twice. Open, for Valeri: the .md still says the projection's doubling is 'not a tuning constant', which simroot/pure.py (project_credit) refutes and which is why the .tex proposes credit; the .md's Tables 2-3 predate Chandrupatla's own method as a baseline (2785 APS, first place), so its 'parity' abstract is out of date; Brent 2890/4101 in the .md against 2889/4099 in the current sweep. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
f5d036c9d8 |
Why the wide-bracket gap remains, taken apart on the SAME evaluations: 'order of the model' explains only a third. Of the 262 evaluations lost on 33 problems, 178 sit on fun3-fun6 - pure powers of order 3, 5, 9, 19 - where no interpolating model works (our step 0.41-0.81 bracket halvings per evaluation, IQI from our own points 0.01-0.17) and Chandrupatla wins by BISECTING 93-100% of his steps; our step is slower than bisection there and our 2x-bisection guarantee licenses it. His band inside our step confirms it per family: fun4/5/6 573/456/456 -> 296/239/235 against his 293/228/228, while +164/+111/+170/+144 on fun1/2/8/9 where it refuses good steps - slot 2's total was two opposite effects summed. Only fun1 (58) is model order: IQI from our three points 10.37 halvings against our 0.62; a convex two-point step cannot carry IQI's negative weight (428/428 non-degenerate states; five underflowed to -0.0).
The flat regime is not detectable by the three-point order estimate: m >= 2 (the exact condition for a tangent step to lose to a halving) fires on 0.2% of APS states and on only 5.8% of states of pure powers of order 3-19. Paper corrected where it said the whole gap is model order (widelimit, decision, abstract, future work - the refuted log transform removed). WARNING recorded in FINDINGS_model_order.md: article/sim_numerics.tex has carried a STALE header since the first commit (current text = sim_numerics.md, unchanged since 08-24); every paper edit of 09-20/21 went into the .tex, the .md has none of them. Which file is canonical is Valeri's call. The new text numbers trace to results_diag_*.txt but are not yet machine-checked by verify_article.py. Trace hook in pure_root is behaviour-neutral and pinned; 762 pass on the server twice. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |