vvs/sim-numerics
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
77 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags
16b9ab87f1537c9c7e3b84dbd4c863ad83391f5a
Commit Graph
6 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
vvsandClaude Opus 5 16b9ab87f1 Article (canonical .md), step 2: abstract, introduction, a note in section 3, the close of 7.4, negative results 12-16, conclusion, future work and references 8-12 rewritten for the proposed method A'; two statements that could not be recomputed rephrased. verify_article: expected values updated to the regenerated sweeps, the gate cells renamed (progress.*; their CHA values had moved unnoticed, 2991 -> 3047, 2851 -> 2888, not quoted in the paper), and verify_flat_regime_and_oos() added - Sections 8-9, Tables 8-11, items 12-16 and the abstract, recomputed from server files and fresh diagnosis runs. Verifier on the server: 401 OK, 0 BAD, 'every number stated in the paper matches the sweep data'. Server regression x2: 1226 passed, 0 failed. 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-21 20:56:58 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 8bf595d9be Article (canonical .md), step 1: 42 stale numbers brought to the regenerated server sweeps (Tables 3-7, 5.3, 7.1-7.4, section 10), statements that no longer hold rephrased ((2)+(3) not worse than either alone on the wide-bracket set; the best constant-free configuration is no longer defect); the rule of section 3 renamed the base rule; new Section 8 (the flat regime recognised by analogy: the flag, the analogy with its own past, the translation limit, the split from the order, five more readings, the proposed method A', Tables 8-9) and Section 9 (out-of-sample evidence on four more corpora, Tables 10-11); negative results and conclusion renumbered 10-11. Abstract, introduction, conclusion and verify_article still to update. 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-21 20:44:31 +01:00
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>
 2026-09-21 10:53:00 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 8830765454 §3.1 and Tables 2-3 of the canonical .md brought to current data (Valeri's request). §3.1 said the projection's doubling 'is not a tuning constant' and that zero slack 'behaves as bisection'; both are refuted by measurement (stage12 part 3, rerun as measure_budget_factor.py): the canonical total is 2806 for every multiplier >= 1.25, but the wide-bracket total moves monotonically, 2752 at 1.25 to 4006 at 4, and multiplier 1 costs 4817/2997, nowhere near bisection's 7530/3090. So the proposed safeguard is the EARNED projection (credit, C0 = 1 bit: bisection + 1 step, the cheapest endowment within that promise, 8395 -> 7658 -> 6588), as code and verifier had already fixed but no text said; the scheduled projection stays as the one-constant end of the trade. The text says openly that this choice was made after a question, and that it was not made for the numbers - on the canonical set it costs 762 more. 
Tables 2-3 regenerated from sweep_full.json by tables_for_md.py with the verifier's own ranking: Chandrupatla's method, missing from both, is FIRST on the canonical set (2785) and second on the wide-bracket set (2423); the proposed rule is 29th (3568) and 10th (3020); Brent 2889/4099 (was 2890/4101). The abstract, §5 text, §5.1, §5.2 (timed configuration named), §7 (records 2527/2523 are under the scheduled projection: 2523 flat for every multiplier 1.25-4, 2527 becomes 2541 at 1.25; under credit the readings give far less, best constant-free total 6494 by 'defect'), §8.4, §8.11 and the conclusion now say so: parity with the tuned methods at the price of one constant, or a constant-free rule with a tighter guarantee that trails on the canonical set. verify_article.py: 279 checks, measured tables recomputed from fresh runs; 762 tests pass twice.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-21 08:03:21 +01:00
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>
 2026-09-21 07:48:55 +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