  vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
08ffa42e98
|
CORRECTION, prompted by Valeri: the step IS a fraction of the bracket — with the ratio similarity 1-S = min(1,|f|/(|f'|D)) so step = min(D,|f|/|f'|) — and my 'absolute length cannot march' was wrong, as was the follow-up guess that we creep along one side: measured, 91.5% of our probes DO shrink the bracket, more often than Chandrupatla's 87.5%. What differs is how much each probe removes: 0.93 halvings per evaluation against 2.26. A linear model of the value axis undershoots on a wide bracket of a convex function, so the new bracket is about half; inverse quadratic interpolation lands near the root and removes four fifths. The limit is the ORDER OF THE MODEL the similarity is read against, and all three parameter-free ways round it are now measured failures (cbrt, log change of variable, derived3_m). Paper corrected
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
2026-09-21 00:12:58 +01:00 |
|
|
vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
0fb75be3cf
|
the wide-bracket gap is NOT closed, and now it has an address: the STEP RULE, not the guarantee and not the reading places. fun1 is one function at growing widths — 7/8, 12/12, 19/15, 59/24, 63/44 — so we tie when narrow and lose as it widens, while our observed order is the HIGHER one (3.63 vs 2.02); 59 on a 2e4 bracket is what bisection needs, i.e. one halving per evaluation against their 2.3. With the safeguard removed entirely we still spend 46/57/61/68 against bisection 57/77/45/45 and Chandrupatla 24/44 — worse than bisection on two of them. |f|/|f'| is an absolute length and cannot march across decades; written into the paper as the stated limit. Also fixed a tracer bug that had best_of double-counting evaluations (2993 vs 1487)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
2026-09-21 00:09:18 +01:00 |
|
|
vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
8d20816163
|
the scoring artefact is in BOTH sets: aps.13.00 joins the five fun7 problems — 6 of 199 problems where f underflows to exactly zero on a ~3.2e-2 neighbourhood of the declared root, so every method returns a genuine root (|f(x)| below the smallest normal) and every method is scored a failure. About 1150 evaluations of EVERY two-set total are this artefact; re-scored, all methods solve 199/199 except Brent 197. Ranking unchanged: ours-by-shape 2337 on APS against chandrupatla 2593, chandrupatla 1487 on CHA against our 1740. Written into the paper as a table with both criteria; pdflatex clean, verifier green
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
2026-09-21 00:01:35 +01:00 |
|
|
vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
6b5870f815
|
chasing Chandrupatla found a property of the BENCHMARK: on all five fun7 problems f vanishes identically near the declared root (f(0+t)=0 up to 3.2e-2), every method stops at a point where f(x)=0 exactly and is scored a failure by the |x-root|<=1e-6 rule — so 1000 evaluations of EVERY wide-bracket total are an artefact and the universal '40 of 45' is a scoring statement. Re-scored: 45/45 for everyone but Brent, ranking unchanged, gap to Chandrupatla 253 (17%) and diffuse across 8 families. Written into the paper with its reproducing scripts; pdflatex clean, verifier green
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
2026-09-20 23:57:49 +01:00 |
|
|
vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
ee816933eb
|
paper updated with the placement results and machine-checked: new section 'Where the similarity is read' (2527 on APS below every method measured, 5511 over both sets, the non-composition of the two readings, and the two negatives with their numbers), abstract extended, verify_article.py now also checks every new number against its own sweep file — all green, pdflatex clean
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
2026-09-20 23:52:13 +01:00 |
|
|
vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
4a23aacf96
|
baseline: the published sim-numerics artifact as it stands (490 tests, verify_article.py checks all 72 paper numbers against sweep_full.json)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
2026-09-20 22:38:17 +01:00 |
|