  vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
cc2c499f63
|
Valeri's objection measured: the principle is right (a similarity step should be large far away and small near), and our sigma = |f'|D defeats it — at x=1e4 on a 2e4 bracket the normalised residual is 0.167, so S=0.833 'similar' and the step is small five thousand step-lengths from the root. Selecting sigma = min(|f'|D, max|f| at the ends) — no new constant — improves 403 to 390 on eight hand-picked wide problems but is WORSE over the grid: APS 3288 vs 2726, CHA 3111 vs 2683, so the mode is rejected by its pre-registered rule. Its extra solves are two fun7 problems landing inside the flat zero region, i.e. the scoring artefact and not a capability. Written into Negative results as the answer to the natural objection
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
2026-09-21 00:19:03 +01:00 |
|
|
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
|
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 |
|