sim-numerics

51 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags

3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
vvsandClaude Opus 5	68df1d25db	Sign tests by product underflowed: FIXED everywhere (branch, not master - the paper is not yet updated). FA * fnew < 0.0 with FA ~ -1e-200, fnew ~ 1e-150 is -0.0 and '-0.0 < 0.0' is False, so on flat functions (x^19) the bracket update moved the wrong end, the root left the bracket and the run still reported convergence - the proposed rule returned 4.9e-9, bisection 3.5e-9, ITP 1.6e-8 with a claimed 1e-12 bracket; the 1e-6 harness scored them solved. Same defect in our bisection, false-position family, Ridders, Brent, ITP and twelve copies in stage scripts, simroot/sim.py and one test; all replaced by _opposite / _same_sign, pinned by test_sign_underflow. Impact, every sweep regenerated: the paper's key configurations are unchanged to the evaluation (proposed 2806/3220, credit 3568/3020, Chandrupatla, TOMS 748, Brent, bisection); 46 stated numbers move (ITP CHA 2857 -> 2896, ITP oracle 2611 -> 2647, record CHA figures by 14-18, the grid means by ~1%) and one finding weakens: the measured-order exponent of section 7.1 was cheaper in 29 of 60 far cells and 7 of 7 safeguards; with the fix 12 of 61 and 6 of 7, and on the wide-bracket set it now loses in every safeguard and drops 5 problems. PREREG G1-G3 outcome on the fixed code: G2 (repeating step pattern, period from the data) PASSES Y1-Y4 and is ACCEPTED by the stop rule - proposed rule APS 2806 -> 2782 (below Chandrupatla's 2787), CHA 3220 -> 3169, both 6026 -> 5951, per problem vs Chandrupatla on APS 95/20/38 p = 8e-7. G1 fails Y1/Y2 (its Y3 miss was the sign bug), G3 fails Y2, A fails Y2. Regression 887 pass; the two red tests are the paper-number check (awaiting the paper update) and test_blend (fixed since, copy in stage16). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-09-21 12:49:01 +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	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

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

vvsandClaude Opus 5

68df1d25db

Sign tests by product underflowed: FIXED everywhere (branch, not master - the paper is not yet updated). FA * fnew < 0.0 with FA ~ -1e-200, fnew ~ 1e-150 is -0.0 and '-0.0 < 0.0' is False, so on flat functions (x^19) the bracket update moved the wrong end, the root left the bracket and the run still reported convergence - the proposed rule returned 4.9e-9, bisection 3.5e-9, ITP 1.6e-8 with a claimed 1e-12 bracket; the 1e-6 harness scored them solved. Same defect in our bisection, false-position family, Ridders, Brent, ITP and twelve copies in stage scripts, simroot/sim.py and one test; all replaced by _opposite / _same_sign, pinned by test_sign_underflow.

Impact, every sweep regenerated: the paper's key configurations are unchanged to the evaluation (proposed 2806/3220, credit 3568/3020, Chandrupatla, TOMS 748, Brent, bisection); 46 stated numbers move (ITP CHA 2857 -> 2896, ITP oracle 2611 -> 2647, record CHA figures by 14-18, the grid means by ~1%) and one finding weakens: the measured-order exponent of section 7.1 was cheaper in 29 of 60 far cells and 7 of 7 safeguards; with the fix 12 of 61 and 6 of 7, and on the wide-bracket set it now loses in every safeguard and drops 5 problems.

PREREG G1-G3 outcome on the fixed code: G2 (repeating step pattern, period from the data) PASSES Y1-Y4 and is ACCEPTED by the stop rule - proposed rule APS 2806 -> 2782 (below Chandrupatla's 2787), CHA 3220 -> 3169, both 6026 -> 5951, per problem vs Chandrupatla on APS 95/20/38 p = 8e-7. G1 fails Y1/Y2 (its Y3 miss was the sign bug), G3 fails Y2, A fails Y2. Regression 887 pass; the two red tests are the paper-number check (awaiting the paper update) and test_blend (fixed since, copy in stage16).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-09-21 12:49:01 +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

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