sim-numerics

72 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags

2 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	99be33a632	A in the method (extrapolate='steps', default 'none' = published bit for bit): NOT accepted into the proposed rule by the declared stop rule - X2 fails. Proposed rule without -> with A: APS 2806 -> 2967 (X2 FAIL), CHA 3220 -> 2925 (X1 pass), flat fun3-6 1823 -> 1524 (X4 pass), guarantee intact, 0 violations in 39 family cells (X3 pass). The per-problem edge over Chandrupatla on APS is lost (87/24/42, p=9e-5 -> 42/62/49, p=0.53). X5: dissimilar+slope with A reaches 2859+2545 = 5404 over both sets, the best total this line has measured (was 5511; Chandrupatla 5228) - but again by trading the canonical set (2726 -> 2859) for the wide brackets (2785 -> 2545). The one-step replay (APS no harm) did not carry over: its bracket-halving metric rewards overshooting the root, which on a simple root costs superlinear convergence in the full run - the declared one-step limitation, now measured. Among the nine functions A helps only the tent (6026 -> 5892) and slightly ratio_soft. Also: pin 'strictly fewer evaluations on every flat problem' was wrong for 6(x-2)^5 on [0,10] - both runs are budget-bound (90 of the guaranteed 91); corrected to the measured claim. verify_article 286/286, 836 tests pass twice. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-09-21 12:11:06 +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

99be33a632

A in the method (extrapolate='steps', default 'none' = published bit for bit): NOT accepted into the proposed rule by the declared stop rule - X2 fails. Proposed rule without -> with A: APS 2806 -> 2967 (X2 FAIL), CHA 3220 -> 2925 (X1 pass), flat fun3-6 1823 -> 1524 (X4 pass), guarantee intact, 0 violations in 39 family cells (X3 pass). The per-problem edge over Chandrupatla on APS is lost (87/24/42, p=9e-5 -> 42/62/49, p=0.53).

X5: dissimilar+slope with A reaches 2859+2545 = 5404 over both sets, the best total this line has measured (was 5511; Chandrupatla 5228) - but again by trading the canonical set (2726 -> 2859) for the wide brackets (2785 -> 2545). The one-step replay (APS no harm) did not carry over: its bracket-halving metric rewards overshooting the root, which on a simple root costs superlinear convergence in the full run - the declared one-step limitation, now measured. Among the nine functions A helps only the tent (6026 -> 5892) and slightly ratio_soft.

Also: pin 'strictly fewer evaluations on every flat problem' was wrong for 6(x-2)^5 on [0,10] - both runs are budget-bound (90 of the guaranteed 91); corrected to the measured claim. verify_article 286/286, 836 tests pass twice.

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

2026-09-21 12:11:06 +01:00