2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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