vvs/sim-numerics
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
22 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags
de1f8f726d7c2531d1a94134067ecc4de2b7fbef
Commit Graph
11 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
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.md's Tables 2-3 predate Chandrupatla's own method as a baseline (2785 APS, first place), so its 'parity' abstract is out of date; Brent 2890/4101 in the .md against 2889/4099 in the current sweep.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 f5d036c9d8 Why the wide-bracket gap remains, taken apart on the SAME evaluations: 'order of the model' explains only a third. Of the 262 evaluations lost on 33 problems, 178 sit on fun3-fun6 - pure powers of order 3, 5, 9, 19 - where no interpolating model works (our step 0.41-0.81 bracket halvings per evaluation, IQI from our own points 0.01-0.17) and Chandrupatla wins by BISECTING 93-100% of his steps; our step is slower than bisection there and our 2x-bisection guarantee licenses it. His band inside our step confirms it per family: fun4/5/6 573/456/456 -> 296/239/235 against his 293/228/228, while +164/+111/+170/+144 on fun1/2/8/9 where it refuses good steps - slot 2's total was two opposite effects summed. Only fun1 (58) is model order: IQI from our three points 10.37 halvings against our 0.62; a convex two-point step cannot carry IQI's negative weight (428/428 non-degenerate states; five underflowed to -0.0). 
The flat regime is not detectable by the three-point order estimate: m >= 2 (the exact condition for a tangent step to lose to a halving) fires on 0.2% of APS states and on only 5.8% of states of pure powers of order 3-19. Paper corrected where it said the whole gap is model order (widelimit, decision, abstract, future work - the refuted log transform removed). WARNING recorded in FINDINGS_model_order.md: article/sim_numerics.tex has carried a STALE header since the first commit (current text = sim_numerics.md, unchanged since 08-24); every paper edit of 09-20/21 went into the .tex, the .md has none of them. Which file is canonical is Valeri's call. The new text numbers trace to results_diag_*.txt but are not yet machine-checked by verify_article.py. Trace hook in pure_root is behaviour-neutral and pinned; 762 pass on the server twice.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-21 07:38:16 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 2357379c2d Slot 2, the decision place: Chandrupatla's own acceptance band, put inside our step rule as an instrument, does NOT close the gap - CHA 3066 (project) / 2899 (credit) against his 2423, while APS doubles 2806 -> 5432, and the band is not idle (63.6% refusals). The fifth independent test of one conclusion: the remaining gap is the ORDER of the model the step is built on, not the place the similarity is read in. By the declared stop rule (M1 and M2 both false) the 'where is the similarity read' line is closed: all four places measured. 
Not empty-handed: our own parameter-free reading 'defect' - refuse when |phi - xi| > min(xi, 1 - xi) - sets a new canonical best, APS 2523 at 153/154 (previous 2527, Chandrupatla 2785), guarantee intact (0 of 135 family cells), refusing on 7.0% of steps. It is a second point on the same trade, not a replacement: 5733 over both sets against 5511, because CHA gives back 3210. Also: _shape_ratios crashed on a missing third point, which evaluate would have turned into a silent sweep of zeros; the slope-gate pin was anchored on line spelling; and the server copy had drifted (stale relax/sor.py, test_relaxation.py absent - 746 tests instead of 755). All synced, 92/92 files identical by content, 755 pass on the server.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-21 06:58:59 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 15b94242e0 Valeri's second point measured: the similarity function belongs to the PLACE it is read in, not to the method. False position's three-century stall is a similarity read at order one on an approach of order m: with sigma = |f(far)| the residual ratio is (e/E)^m, so raising it to the measured 1/m recovers the distance ratio exactly. Paired inside each cell, the correction is cheaper in 7 of 7 safeguards for S = 1/(1+z) - the one function that makes that place exact inverse interpolation - and in only 29 of 60 cells over all nine functions, i.e. a coin. It does NOT beat Chandrupatla (2884 against 2683 and 2423), it HARMS the slope reading (2806 -> 2854), and it does not cure false position: 127/154 and 10676 become 128/154 and 10043, where Illinois buys 153/154 and 7045 with one constant. Estimator bias measured and stated: a pure cube reads 2.830, not 3 
Also fixes a real regression from cc2c499: the derived3_cap branch was inserted in front of the derived3_m note and swallowed its division, so derived3_m silently became derived3 (2806 against 2806) and a refutation recorded in the paper stopped being reproducible. The full pin caught it; a cheap pin now guards it too. And \label{sec:method} never existed while the table on page 7 referenced it.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-21 01:17:25 +01:00
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 6b5870f815 chasing Chandrupatla found a property of the BENCHMARK: on all five fun7 problems f vanishes identically near the declared root (f(0+t)=0 up to 3.2e-2), every method stops at a point where f(x)=0 exactly and is scored a failure by the |x-root|<=1e-6 rule — so 1000 evaluations of EVERY wide-bracket total are an artefact and the universal '40 of 45' is a scoring statement. Re-scored: 45/45 for everyone but Brent, ranking unchanged, gap to Chandrupatla 253 (17%) and diffuse across 8 families. Written into the paper with its reproducing scripts; pdflatex clean, verifier green 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-20 23:57:49 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 ee816933eb paper updated with the placement results and machine-checked: new section 'Where the similarity is read' (2527 on APS below every method measured, 5511 over both sets, the non-composition of the two readings, and the two negatives with their numbers), abstract extended, verify_article.py now also checks every new number against its own sweep file — all green, pdflatex clean 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-20 23:52:13 +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