Commit Graph
101 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
vvsandClaude Opus 5 fc91d3b8aa DOI архива Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.22894337: статья, README; PDF пересобран
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 10:31:09 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 1c63b829d9 Zenodo package: the bundle carries HEAD as well, so a plain 'git clone sim-numerics.bundle' checks the branch out (the clean-room check could not clone it).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 10:20:02 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 9c1638af07 Zenodo package (open release) and the PDF rebuilt with the published history's hashes.
make_open_package.py builds the archive from HEAD - source (git archive, LF line ends), the full history (git bundle), both simbracket wheels, README, requirements, reproduce.sh, LICENSE, NOTICE, SHA256SUMS - and refuses if any commit of the branch carries a string from a private list kept outside the repository, or if a text file has CRLF line ends; cleanroom_check.sh verifies the archive on Linux. Appendix D states that the history was rewritten once before publication to remove a server address, and that Table D1 is recomputed from the published history. lib/LICENSE so the wheels carry the licence. Server: verify 548 OK / 0 BAD, regression x2 1239 passed, PDF 32 pages, 0 errors, 0 overfull.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 10:17:07 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 5c0550a0de Open release of A' under the Apache License 2.0: LICENSE (verbatim Apache-2.0 text), NOTICE, licence stated in the paper's availability section and in simbracket's metadata. The next method is not described anywhere in the tree or in the history reachable from this branch. README no longer names the server. PDF rebuilt from the text as it stands. Server: verify 548 OK / 0 BAD, regression x2 1239 passed, PDF 32 pages, 0 errors, 0 overfull.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 09:40:25 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 1eb2c1664f Revision 3: exact-zero stop in section 4; Table 12 with the post hoc Lagouanelle variant (branch m>=2: corpus 4 5568, six corpora 18372, multiple/fractional 6540, APS 2960; A' 178/34/28), the controls' missing exit in its caption; the reading of Table 12 restated in 7.1, 6.6 and the conclusion - the analogy order transfers to the classical frame and works better there than in A's split (2809 vs 4042 on multiple roots), and A's layer as a whole (detector with exit) earns its place (+1233 vs -3934). Server: verify 548 OK / 0 BAD, regression x2 1239 passed, PDF 32 pages, 0 errors, 0 overfull.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 09:31:40 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 aa304cd262 POSTHOC_lag_branch_2026-09-22: Lagouanelle-in-Chandrupatla restricted to the branch m>=2 (revision 3, point 5), written after K3 and before this run; marked post hoc, outside the K3 decision rule.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 09:31:21 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 6a1c264910 Revision 2 into the paper.
2: 'pre-registered' -> 'recorded in advance'; Appendix D states the order is attested only by the author's git history. 3: Dekker, Illinois and false position exhaust the budget on aps.13.00 under either criterion (stalled where |f|<1e-62, no sign change within 1e-6) - hence unchanged totals. 4: exact-zero stops in Table 11 (CHA: Brent 15/20, Chandrupatla 4/20, A' 2/20; corpus 1: none, transformation still 3.4x cheaper). 5: Table 12, the multiplicity estimated during the run (A' ahead; the analogy order inside Chandrupatla closes 31-59% of the gap on multiple roots and pays on simple ones; Lagouanelle blind on side-alternating triples); 6.6, conclusion, future work. 6: Algorithms 1-2 - lo/hi, return on a stall, L_x/L_f and the empty memory, the step pattern as a formula, O(n^2). 7: Table 3's two bracket-scaled rows, dashes in Table 5, the abstract's last sentence (250 words). verify_revision2: 17 checks. Server: verify 544 OK / 0 BAD, regression x2 1238 passed, PDF 32 pages, 0 errors, 0 overfull.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 09:31:19 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 34b2a30d6c K3 outcome (PREREG_estimated_transform, Linux run): the 6.6 claim stands. Corpus 4: A' 3656 vs Chandrupatla on sign(f)|f|^(1/m_hat) with the analogy order 3806 (A' 126/38/76, p=5e-4) and with Lagouanelle 7526; six corpora 13032 vs 15733 and 30991. On multiple/fractional roots the analogy order inside Chandrupatla closes 59%, 58%, 31% of the A'->oracle gap (CHA 322 vs 654, corpus 1 721 vs 1229, corpus 4 1766 vs 2159) and pays on simple roots (APS 3453 vs 2595); Lagouanelle on Chandrupatla's side-alternating triples reads a fractional order on 115 of 154 simple APS roots.
simroot/transformed.py: Chandrupatla on G(f) with m_hat estimated in the run; bit-identical to chandrupatla with no estimate (test). Bug found and pinned by a test: |f|^(1/m_hat) overflowed with an OverflowError on the fractional branch; now inf and the step halves.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 08:50:37 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 2fe6d729a8 PREREG_estimated_transform_2026-09-22 (revision 2, point 5), before code and run: Chandrupatla on sign(f)|f|^(1/m_hat) with m_hat estimated during the run - Lagouanelle (K3-L) or A's analogy order (K3-A), hysteresis on the branches m>=2, m<=2/3; decisive on corpus 4; outcome rule including withdrawal of the 6.6 claim. Also diag_revision2.py (points 3, 4: the three unchanged Table 2 rows exhaust the budget on aps.13.00 under both criteria; exact-zero stops per method in Table 11).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 08:46:50 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 0a62f7babb Revision step 3: restructured and shortened paper, full listing of A', code availability.
Title: 'Root Finding by Similarity and Analogy: A Bracketing Method with a Data-Selected Decision Layer'. Abstract 246 words. Main text 10.4k words (was 17.4k): search reports moved to Appendices A (old 6-7), B (wall-clock), C (negative results); revision history removed; pronouns for Chandrupatla's method fixed; tables numbered in order. New: Algorithm 2 (complete A'), the decision layer counted honestly in 6.5, Code and data availability, Appendix D (30 pre-registrations against the first commit of their own results, read from git by check_prereg_order.py: 25 before, 4 same commit, 1 decided on the smoke; A' frozen at 8027d7f between corpus 4's definition 657df10 and its results 6d2531e). Literature: Bus & Dekker 1975, Fernandez-Diaz & Menendez-Perez 2023 (two dimensionless parameters; SFRFm on sign(f)|f|^(1/m) with known multiplicity - the nearest precursor of the split), Cordero-Neta-Torregrosa 2021; Illinois and Ridders cited. verify_article: explicit check that every head-to-head row sums to its set. check_new_numbers.py: no number new to the text except headings, references, hashes. Server: verify 527 OK / 0 BAD, regression x2 1232 passed, PDF 30 pages, 0 errors, 0 undefined, 0 overfull.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 08:18:30 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 fbf13cd592 Revision step 2 into the paper: section 9.1 (Tables 9b, 9c) as PREREG_controls prescribes. The analogy detector beats Lagouanelle-with-memory, Chandrupatla's band and no detector on corpus 4 (3656 vs 4488, 6236, 6165); with the multiplicity given, the classical transformation is 2.4-6.8x cheaper on every multiple or fractional root - stated as the price of estimating the order, in the abstract, 8.3, 8.6, the conclusion and as the first future-work question. verify_controls(): 26 checks. Server: verify 526 OK / 0 BAD, regression x2 1232 passed, PDF 30 pages, 0 errors, 0 undefined, 0 overfull.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 07:53:58 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 92c07d8a40 PREREG_controls outcome (Linux run): C1 passed for every detector on corpus 4 - A' 3656 against Lagouanelle-with-memory 4488 (84/121/35, p=8e-6), Chandrupatla's band 6236, no detector 6165; six corpora 13032 against 15171, 20668, 20749; 0 bound violations. K1: with the true multiplicity, library Chandrupatla/Brent on sign(f)|f|^(1/m*) beat A' on every multiple or fractional root (CHA 96 vs 654, corpus 1 358 vs 1229, corpus 4 901 vs 2159); level elsewhere.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 07:38:26 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 60294e84d9 Controls K1/K2: code and two PREREG amendments, committed before the full run.
simroot/pure.py: flatlagmempt / flatbandmempt / flatflagmempt - A' with only the flat detector
swapped (Lagouanelle without declining outside (0,1), with memory; Chandrupatla's band; none).
A' itself is untouched: bit-identical to the compiled simbracket on all 868 problems (x2).
sweep_controls.py: K2 through sweep_fourth's harness, K1 with the oracle order m*.
Amendment 1: m* <= 0 is undefined (aps.15.22-30, C0.04 crashed the first full attempt).
Amendment 2 (after the smokes; only corpus-level K1 sums and corpus-4 K2 sums were seen): each
side's slope rounded to 0.01, m* defined only when both sides show a zero (jumps C0.03,
aps.15.21), group 'multiple/fractional' = m* >= 2 or m* <= 2/3, the branches of section 8.1
(simple roots measured at 0.99999 fell under the registered 'm* < 1').
tests/test_article_numbers.py: the verifier test runs on Linux only (the paper's numbers are a
Linux run; libm's last digit differs elsewhere, e.g. 4461 vs 4462).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 07:37:41 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 77312bedcf PREREG_controls_2026-09-22: the controls, written before code and run.
K1 (point 5): library Chandrupatla and Brent on sign(f)|f|^(1/m*) with the true order m* - an upper
bound for "transform and interpolate". K2 (point 6): A' with only the flat detector swapped -
Lagouanelle with the same memory (hysteresis), Chandrupatla's band, and no detector at all.
Decisive corpus: corpus 4; criteria C1-C5 and what the paper says under every outcome, including
withdrawing the claim that the analogy carries the gain if any control matches A'.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 07:30:48 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 862feaff86 Revision 1, step 1: one scoring criterion, the correct order, and the internal inconsistencies.
Point 1. The base step's order is Muller's 1.839, not 2: the derivative of the parabola through
the last three points errs by f'''/6 (x_n - x_{n-1})(x_n - x_{n-2}) = O(e_{n-1} e_{n-2}).
order_high_precision.py (3000 digits, to 1e-2900): 1.840 on cos x - x, e^x - 2, x^3 - x - 2,
sin x - 1/2; 2.000 only on x^2 - 2; two-point 1.618. The double-precision medians (2.000, 1.94)
are removed from the text.

Point 3. Every protocol number is re-scored under the criterion of section 9 - a sign change
within 1e-6 or f(x) == 0. rescore_uniform.py re-runs all 2779 distinct configurations of the 25
protocol sweeps on APS and CHA (the runs did not keep x) -> sweep_uniform.json, same row format;
it reproduces the APS/CHA lines of Table 10 exactly (built-in check). verify_article.py,
audit_similarity_places.py and the gap diagnostics read the re-scored data; the multiplier and
endowment measurements score by the same criterion. Table 7 (two criteria side by side) is gone;
7.3 now explains why the criterion is a sign change. Consequences stated in the text: the base
rule 2634 / 2357 against Chandrupatla 2595 / 1505 (1.5% behind on APS, no longer "level"); A'
2259 / 1074 (12.9% and 28.6% below Chandrupatla); the defect reading 2351 is second to the
shape reading 2337, not the record; the remembered analogy is level with no regime (2633 vs
2634) under this criterion; Table 9a's range is 19% to 425%.

Point 8. report_sweep.head_to_head counts every problem, failures charged (it counted only the
problems both methods solved, which is why Table 8 rows summed to 153 and 40). Family-level
comparisons added (A' vs Chandrupatla 8/1/6 of 15 and 7/0/2 of 9 families, not significant), and
an independence paragraph in section 9.

Point 11. sweep_itp.py: ITP (recommended constants and per-problem oracle) on all six corpora ->
Table 10; behind A' on every corpus, 0 bound violations.

Points 7, 9, 10 and the internals: the 2x bound is ours, not the rivals' promise; the law
predicts the group order only; "outside the proven bracket" explained (narrowest bracket of all
observed signs); 7.4's fun1 paragraph corrected (five costs under safe; the unguarded numbers
belong to fun1.4, fun1.5 and to fun3.1, fun5.1 separately); Table 1's last cell; the corpus-4
composition and odd multiplicities stated, also in the abstract.

build_tex.py: pdflatex output decoded with errors="replace" (a UTF-8 character cut by TeX's log
wrap crashed the build). Table 10 column widths rebalanced.

Checks: verify_article on the server 500 OK / 0 BAD (467 existing with the new values, 33 new);
regression x2 on the server 1232 passed, 0 failed; PDF 28 pages, 0 errors, 0 undefined, 0 overfull.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 07:01:36 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 eeb9102d47 simbracket: A' as a compiled library (Cython, abi3 wheels for Windows and Linux, Python >= 3.10).
lib/simbracket/_core.pyx ports exactly the A' path of simroot.pure.pure_root (tent similarity,
three-point scale, projection c=2, contra+flatanalogmempt+exp+half+close+sub, pattern) with
Python's semantics kept where they differ from C: min/max keep the first argument on ties and
NaN, float division by zero raises, math.log raises at 0, and math.hypot and the builtin sum
(compensated since 3.12) are called rather than re-coded. find_root(f, a, b, xtol, maxfev) ->
(x, nfev, converged); evaluation_bound(a, b, xtol) = 2*ceil(log2(|b-a|/xtol)) + 3.

tests/test_simbracket_equivalence.py: bit-identical x and evaluation count against pure_root on
all 868 problems of the six corpora (the 91 Roots.jl problems in full), at xtol 1e-12 and 1e-8
and with the budget cut to 12; errors match; the loaded module is the compiled one. 7/7 on
Windows and on Linux. check_simbracket.py: removing any one component from the reference
makes 36 to 455 problems differ (the test discriminates); the compiled form is 4x faster.

The wheel carries only the compiled extension; _core.c is generated (gen_c.py) and ignored.
Regression on the server x2: 1232 passed, 0 failed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-22 07:01:13 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 0e05c92a1b Title (Valeri): 'Root Finding by Similarity and Analogy: A Bracketing Method with One Declared Constant' - the method rests on both, and 'parameter-free' overstated it (one declared constant, two declared choices). .tex and PDF regenerated; verifier 467 OK / 0 BAD.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 22:15:01 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 23d0c73231 The .tex is no longer stale: regenerated from the canonical .md by build_tex.py (pandoc 3.1.3 + pdflatex on the server; marked GENERATED, never edited by hand). PDF: 28 pages, 0 errors, 0 undefined references, 0 overfull boxes. For LaTeX the .md got braces on four n_\max subscripts (fix_md_for_latex.py; rendering identical) and Table 10 was split into totals (10) and per-problem counts (10b) so that it fits a page; numbers unchanged. verify_article on the server 467 OK / 0 BAD; regression x2 1226 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 22:07:48 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 d2a142c39e All-corpora wins/losses table: ModAB added (totals, violations, A' per problem and total difference against it on every corpus).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 21:43:43 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 f80aeb5d13 Article: ModAB added - Table 8 row (2914 / 2436 / 5350; A' 118/11/25 and 32/9/4), Table 10 column (totals, bound violations, A' vs ModAB per corpus), how it is run (authors' package pymodab 1.0.9, same stopping rule, counts agree with the package's own), the evidence paragraph (ahead on every corpus p <= 0.0013, the one test 3656 vs 5535 183/34, ModAB's own benchmark all 91: 1507 vs 1588, 9 bound violations), 8.6: ModAB's linearity check at the midpoint named as the precursor of our exit judgment, abstract, conclusion, introduction, future work (the comparison no longer missing), reference 20. verify_article: every ModAB number checked; server 467 OK, 0 BAD; regression x2 1226 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 21:42:15 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 37c81b027a PREREG_modab outcome (server): M1 PASSED - A' ahead of ModAB (authors' package pymodab 1.0.9, same stopping rule, counts equal to the library's own counter). Corpus 4: A' 3656 vs ModAB 5535, per problem 183/23/34 p=7e-26. Paper protocol: APS 2438 vs 2914 (118/11/25), CHA 2005 vs 2436 (32/9/4). Six corpora: 13032 vs 16657, significant on every one. ModAB's own benchmark (Roots.jl f01-f91): all 91 - 1507 vs 1588 (56/13/22 p=1.5e-4); 78 - 1371 vs 1446. ModAB breaks the 2x-bisection bound on 9 problems (1 on corpus 1, 8 on corpus 4), A' on none. ModAB wired outside the published grid (EXTRA_BASELINES), which stays at 264.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 21:35:36 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 bfa23b223d PREREG before install and run: comparison with ModAB via the authors' own package pymodab 1.0.9 (native wrapper of their C code); the same stopping rule as every rival (aTol 1e-12, rTol 8.9e-16, no |f| stop - read in ModAB.c), evaluations counted by our wrapper, budget 200. A' and ModAB frozen. M1 on the fourth corpus (total and sign test), M2-M4 reported (six corpora, paper protocol, guarantee, ModAB's own Roots.jl benchmark). Priority note: ModAB's linearity check at the midpoint is a precursor of our exit judgment, named in 8.6 whatever the outcome.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 21:27:06 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 b677283afc Article: the similarity in the step is earned, not scaffolding; literature in place.
S-ablation of A' (server): A' with each of the nine similarity functions in the step - tent 4443 on the paper protocol (13032 over 855 problems), the nearest other function e^-|z| 4988 (+12%; +9% over six corpora), quadratic ones 18410-18422 (+315%); ranking as the contraction law predicts; guarantee held with every S. The audit of section 7 rerun on the regenerated sweeps (APS unchanged: triple by shape -493 with the tent, +250 with 1/sqrt(1+z^2); defect -283 vs +215).

Text: abstract and section 3 no longer call the similarity scaffolding - the tent making the step Newton's is a property of the similarity chosen; a paragraph in section 7 on the audit; Table 9a; new 8.6 'What is known, and what is new' - Lagouanelle (the order estimate of 7.1 / 10.5), Rall and Hansen-Patrick (8.1), the log-log slope / COC / ACOC (8.2, formula 6), Schroeder and Traub (the split 7 = false position on sign(f)|f|^(1/m)), Brent's acceptance condition (half), Dekker/Brent (tolerance step); what we found no counterpart for is the decision layer by similarity and analogy and the step set by a similarity whose form is decisive. References 13-19. verify_article: Table 9a, the percentages and the audit numbers added; server 446 OK, 0 BAD; regression x2 1226 passed, 0 failed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 21:22:41 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 667f243f54 Article proof-reading: the introduction no longer says the four new corpora were unseen (three were used to close the last two gaps; only the fourth was run once after the code was frozen); a repeated clause in 8.2 merged. verify_article also recomputes every sign-test p printed in Section 9. Server: 411 OK, 0 BAD; regression x2 1226 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 21:03:15 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 16b9ab87f1 Article (canonical .md), step 2: abstract, introduction, a note in section 3, the close of 7.4, negative results 12-16, conclusion, future work and references 8-12 rewritten for the proposed method A'; two statements that could not be recomputed rephrased. verify_article: expected values updated to the regenerated sweeps, the gate cells renamed (progress.*; their CHA values had moved unnoticed, 2991 -> 3047, 2851 -> 2888, not quoted in the paper), and verify_flat_regime_and_oos() added - Sections 8-9, Tables 8-11, items 12-16 and the abstract, recomputed from server files and fresh diagnosis runs. Verifier on the server: 401 OK, 0 BAD, 'every number stated in the paper matches the sweep data'. Server regression x2: 1226 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 20:56:58 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 8bf595d9be Article (canonical .md), step 1: 42 stale numbers brought to the regenerated server sweeps (Tables 3-7, 5.3, 7.1-7.4, section 10), statements that no longer hold rephrased ((2)+(3) not worse than either alone on the wide-bracket set; the best constant-free configuration is no longer defect); the rule of section 3 renamed the base rule; new Section 8 (the flat regime recognised by analogy: the flag, the analogy with its own past, the translation limit, the split from the order, five more readings, the proposed method A', Tables 8-9) and Section 9 (out-of-sample evidence on four more corpora, Tables 10-11); negative results and conclusion renumbered 10-11. Abstract, introduction, conclusion and verify_article still to update.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 20:44:31 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 92fb8c5c04 A' on the paper's own protocol (published roots, server): APS 2438, CHA 2005 (4443) vs Chandrupatla 2787/2441 (5228); per problem 103/20/30 and 29/4/7; earned-budget variant 3608/2807; guarantee held under every safeguard. Leave-one-out ablation of A' on all six corpora: regime +5336, point +3115, sub +959, close +473, half +376, exp +338, G2 +89 (2/6 corpora), contra +28 (3/6) - every component positive in sum, G2 and contra marginal.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 20:37:09 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 2c458c51dc Fix: _local_order divided by fp*fp that underflows to 0 for a tiny nonzero slope (ZeroDivisionError, caught by the sweep harness and charged as a failure - this is what had moved Table 6's order cells after the sign fix). Pinned by a test that fails on the old code. Every sweep file regenerated on the server (run_all_sweeps.sh). verify_article: skip result files that are not grid lists (it crashed on the out-of-sample dicts). Verifier now completes: 224 OK, 57 stale numbers in the paper to update (Table 6 again 7 of 7).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 20:34:19 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 80610e5c27 table_all_corpora: the problem count was hardcoded as 1055; it is 855 (154+45+206+78+132+240) - now computed. Totals unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 20:20:11 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 94d81f24d8 Wins and losses of A' on all six corpora (1055 problems), server numbers only: the seen-corpora run is replaced by its Linux rerun (differences of 1-3 from Windows). Totals: A' 13032, Chandrupatla 16481, Brent 24565, TOMS748 23649. A' vs Chandrupatla per problem significant on 5 of 6 corpora; the applied+GSL corpus is parity (1382 = 1382, 48/52/32 p=0.09).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 20:18:54 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 6d2531e6ea PREREG_close_sub outcome - the ONE check on the fourth corpus (server): A' TRANSFERS. 240 problems: A' 3656 vs Chandrupatla 5717 (-36%), per problem 177/35/28 p=1e-27, guarantee held (Brent 50 and TOMS748 37 violations), all solved; A' below A (4547). Without the targeted classes: 2403 vs 3569, 107/31/22 p=1e-14. Ablation: sub earned (+893, D3 1807 -> 924), close NOT earned on this corpus (-2) though it earned on the seen applied corpus. Per class vs Chandrupatla: D1 random polynomial simple root 20/8/12 (433 vs 419), D2 multiple 39/1/0, D3 fractional power 37/1/2, D4 exp+sin sums 23/14/3, D5 compositions 25/8/7 (503 vs 1017), D6 odd around the root 33/3/4.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 20:08:29 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 8027d7f5ef A' code frozen BEFORE the corpus-4 run (PREREG_close_sub): close (borrowed Dekker/Brent tolerance step, only after a kept promise) and sub (overshoot branch m <= 2/3; the shallow memory is not cleared by the exit - amendment documented). Development on the five seen corpora (uniform sign-change criterion): A' below A everywhere; vs Chandrupatla APS 103/31, CHA 31/10, new-1 109/65, Roots.jl 44/20 p=0.004, applied 48/32 p=0.09 with total 1382 vs 1380. Tests: 1223 passed (full), 358 (gate files).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 20:02:43 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 657df10634 PREREG before code and run: repair the two base-step gaps - close (Dekker/Brent's tolerance step, named as borrowed) and sub (the second branch of |1 - 1/m| > 1/2: enter the regime for m <= 2/3 on an overshooting unkept promise) - and test A' = A + close + sub once on a FOURTH corpus (corpus_fourth.py, seed 20260922, 240 problems in six new families, two of them targeted), committed now; development only on the seen corpora. F1-F3 transfer, F4 the repairs earned.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 19:54:13 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 c2b0eea0f6 PREREG_applied outcome (server): variant A does NOT transfer - total 1580 vs Chandrupatla 1382 (+14%), per problem 40/46/46 p=0.59; guarantee held, 132/132 solved. Wins where roots are (near-)multiple: Kepler e->1 20/11/4, van der Waals near-critical 9/7/4. Losses traced to two gaps in the BASE step (the plain rule loses the same): (1) no bracket closing at the end - on sin[3,4] the root is reached in 7 evaluations (|f| 1e-16) but the far end stays 1.3e-7 away and 17 halvings follow, where Chandrupatla steps a tolerance past the root (Dekker/Brent's device); likely also the IRR losses (1/0/11); (2) roots of order < 1 (sqrt|x| sgn x): the step overshoots and oscillates (+0.15, -0.10, +0.066 ... ratio 0.8), 84 vs 4 - the unkept-promise flag only sees undershoots, the regime only m >= 2.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 19:49:36 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 8ea89dd38d PREREG before any run: third corpus - the GSL root-finding test suite (10, published) and 122 physics/engineering equations on grids fixed beforehand (Kepler incl. e up to 0.999, Colebrook-White, Lambert W, Planck/Wien, van der Waals CO2 incl. near-critical, IRR, finite square well). T1-T3 as before; GSL part reported separately; per equation breakdown.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 19:47:21 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 554ec0c0ae PREREG_roots_jl outcome (server): variant A does NOT transfer by the stop rule on the Roots.jl / ModAB benchmark. 78 out-of-sample problems: total 1464 vs Chandrupatla 1566 (-6.5%, R1 holds), per problem 38/10/30 p=0.4 (R2 fails), guarantee held and all solved (R3); strict f24-f91 the same picture (1340 vs 1454, 35/6/25 p=0.25). B does not transfer either (32/11/35). Same structure as the first new corpus: multiple/flat roots 331 vs 481 (10:3); the rest 1133 vs 1085, per problem 28/10/27 - parity. Largest loss f32 (4 - tan x near the pole, 41 vs 12). Against Brent and TOMS748 A wins (47/25 p=0.013, 55/20 p=6e-5); they break the 2x-bisection bound on 11 and 9 problems, A on none.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 19:40:05 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 97af3ae767 PREREG before any run: second independent corpus - the Roots.jl bracketing benchmark (from the ModAB benchmark, Ganchovski & Traykov), f01-f91 transcribed; 13 problems equal to APS/Chandrupatla functions excluded objectively (7-point identity test), verdict on the other 78; strict view f24-f91; success = sign change within 1e-6 (no roots given, jumps and poles present). R1-R3 as in the first out-of-sample check.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 19:38:26 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 a86a9ed263 PREREG_out_of_sample outcome (server). Variant A (G2 + contra + remembered analogy + order point + exp limit + half) TRANSFERS: new corpus 3492 vs Chandrupatla 3899, per problem 105/34/67 p=0.0046, guarantee held, solved 205 = 205. Variant B (defect + remembered + point + exp) does NOT (total 3587 below, but per problem 95/33/78 p=0.22; loses the exponential class 9/5/26). Per class the transfer is carried by the multiple/flat-root class C3 (1194 vs 1792, 37/0/3); on C0-C2 A is at par per problem and ~6% dearer in total, C4 ~ par, C5 (near-cancelling) 691 vs 574. Ablation: every component earns its place on at least one set (contra only on APS/CHA: +9/+22, NEW -8; G2 only on NEW: +82). Addendum: C0.05 is SciPy's random step function - seeded and its cache cleared before every run for reproducibility; two unseeded runs gave the same verdicts.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 19:33:07 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 47361dabea PREREG before any run: out-of-sample corpus and ablation for the two strongest variants. corpus_new.py (seed 20260921): SciPy 'original' (6) + five generated classes x 40 (smooth simple, transcendental simple, multiple/flat |x-r|^p p~U(2,20), exponential flank, near-cancelling terms), built and validity-checked only (no method has seen it). O1-O3 = transfers (total below Chandrupatla, per-problem sign test p<0.05, guarantee); O4 vs the plain rule; per class. Leave-one-out ablation of every component on APS, CHA and the new corpus.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 19:30:27 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 bbb16ec81c PREREG_half_contra outcome: ACCEPTED (server = smoke in every projection cell; 0 violations in the guaranteed family).
'half': the step promises the root in the half near x (S >= 1/2) while the bracket line puts it in the far half (smaller |f| at the far end) -> halve.
  half alone                                  APS 2806 -> 2564 (!)  CHA 3220 -> 3202
  G2 + contra + rem + point + exp + half      APS 2773 -> 2559  CHA 2073 -> 2047  both 4606 (all of H1-H4; goal kept)
     per problem vs Chandrupatla: APS 98/17/38 p=2.7e-7, CHA 27/6/7 p=8e-4
  contra + rem + point + exp + half (no G2)   APS 2551  CHA 2044  both 4595 (H2 fails by 24)
  with defect it does not combine (APS 2531 -> 2651): the two refuse overlapping steps.
fun9: 77 -> 68 (Chandrupatla 55); fun9.5 24 -> 16.
Server regression x2: 1204 passed, 1 failed = the paper-number check.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 19:24:31 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 3d74b4531b PREREG before code and run: remove the false promise 'the root is here'. Two models of which half holds the root: the step (S >= 1/2 -> the near half) and the bracket line (smaller |f| at the far end -> the far half); if they disagree, halve. Component 'half'; pairs without/with on none and the two accepted exp cells, +/- G2; H1-H4, goal kept; the post-crossing risk written down.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 19:16:24 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 cc82156cde Why the translation limit fired late on the fun9.5 flank (diagnostics only). The limit itself reads correctly: at x = 10.89 the pair has lx 1.09, lf 1.5e-3 -> m = inf, and the regime is entered at the next flag (10.39), after which the flank is halved (5.19, 2.60, 1.30). It fires late because the flank configurations do NOT recur from 20.25 to 10.89: (1) the near-zero step 20.2502 -> 20.2501 (overconfident S ~ 1 from a slope dominated by f(81) = 1.5e35) makes the next triples degenerate (xi ~ 0, then -1.7e7) and pollutes the memory; (2) our three-point step on exp is not a translation - it alternates long/short (xi -1.43, -0.46, -4.10, -0.03, -13.9) and first repeats at lag 5 (state 10 ~ state 5). 9 evaluations from 20.25 to 10.39 where one halving would do: ~8 of the +10 gap on fun9.5.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 18:49:19 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 baa93963cf PREREG_flat_exp_limit outcome: ACCEPTED (server numbers equal to the smoke in every projection cell; 0 violations in the guaranteed family).
Translation limit of the analogy (f shrank, x-scale did not -> m = inf):
  defect + remembered + point + exp        APS 2531  CHA 1972  both 4503
  G2 + defect + remembered + point + exp   APS 2588  CHA 1997  both 4585
  G2 + contra + remembered + point + exp   APS 2773  CHA 2073  both 4846
  Chandrupatla                             APS 2787  CHA 2441  both 5228
Per problem against Chandrupatla now SIGNIFICANT ON BOTH SETS: G2+contra+rem+pt+exp APS 98/18/37 p=1.5e-7, CHA 28/3/9 p=0.0026; defect+rem+pt+exp APS 86/20/47 p=9e-4, CHA 27/3/10 p=0.0076.
NOT where predicted: fun9 only -1..-3; the gain is on the flat families (x^9 177 -> 161, x^19 339 -> 167).
Server regression x2: 1179 passed, 1 failed = the paper-number check.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 18:44:23 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 e887691d09 PREREG before code and run: the exponential limit of the analogy. When the analogous pair's f shrank but its x-scale did not (translation self-similarity, exp(x-1) = exp(x)/e), read m = inf - the boundary of the same definition, no new constant; the order point then is the midpoint. Composite component 'exp'. Pairs without/with exp on the four order-point variants +/- G2; E1-E4, goal retention; false-entry risk written down.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 18:36:36 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 485f25f165 Why the fun9 well is closed only partly (diagnostics only, method unchanged). The well itself IS closed: reaching the root's side takes 4 evaluations with contra/defect against Chandrupatla's 3 (13 and 33 before). The remaining +20 (75 vs 55) is after it: (1) the exponential flank on the widest brackets - our step moves ~1 per evaluation down exp(x) (f/f' = 1), 10 evaluations where Chandrupatla halves 3 times; the analogy entry comes late because exp is self-similar by TRANSLATION, not scaling - the pair's x-scale does not shrink, so m = ln(f ratio)/ln(x ratio) is undefined or negative; (2) overconfident near-zero steps - on a steep flank the three-point slope is huge, z ~ 0, S ~ 1, the model promises the root at a point that is not it: 8 wasted evaluations on fun9 (27 without the decisions).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 18:35:07 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 08863c170c PREREG_flat_order_point outcome: ACCEPTED, and the GOAL is reached - below Chandrupatla on BOTH sets (server numbers, all projection cells equal to the smoke).
Splitting in the flat regime at the point from the analogous pair's order (t = |FA|^(1/m) / (|FA|^(1/m) + |FB|^(1/m))) instead of the midpoint:
  G2 + analogy + order point         APS 2780  CHA 2221  both 5001   (P1-P4 all hold; vs Chandrupatla 2787 / 2441 / 5228)
  G2 + contra + remembered + point   APS 2775  CHA 2119  both 4894   (P3 fails by 2 against its midpoint twin)
  defect + remembered + point        APS 2532  CHA 2164  both 4696   (P3 fails by 2)
Flat fun3-6: 1234 -> 847 (analogy), 1151 -> 743 (remembered) - below pure bisection 1044 and Chandrupatla 1068.
Per problem on the wide set vs Chandrupatla now 20-24 wins / 13-17 losses (p 0.1-0.7, not significant); on the canonical set the edge is kept (95/20/38 p=8e-7).
Guarantee: 0 violations and >= 193 solved in every project/safe/credit cell.
Server regression x2: 1150 passed, 1 failed = the paper-number check.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 18:13:10 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 d1be3bbd05 PREREG before code and run: split at the point from the analogous pair's order m (t = |FA|^(1/m) / (|FA|^(1/m) + |FB|^(1/m))) instead of the midpoint, in the flat regime entered by analogy (flatanalogpt, flatanalogmempt). Exit generalised to any regime point: f(x) nearer to FA(1-t) + FB t than to 0. Paired against the midpoint twins with the same entry; P1-P4, goal reported; the one-sided stall risk written down beforehand.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 18:00:24 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 63cf9fb768 Comparative table of wins and losses (server numbers): five variants of the proposed rule against library Chandrupatla, Brent, TOMS748 - totals, per-problem sign tests, wide-bracket families. Server defcontra grid matches the smoke in every projection cell but one (defect+G2 CHA 3183 vs 3182).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 16:00:05 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 3d9287ec2c PREREG_defect_contra_flat outcome (smoke, all 199 problems). Goal (below Chandrupatla on both) NOT reached by any cell: best CHA 2537 vs 2441. Best total: defect+flatanalogmem APS 2530 / CHA 2561 = 5091 < Chandrupatla 5228 (first time), C1-C3 hold; ablation: defect earns APS +284 (costs CHA 9), remembered analogy earns CHA +649 (costs APS 7). contra earned without defect (APS 2806 -> 2785, CHA 3220 -> 3198; with the remembered analogy 2792 / 2537, the best CHA), redundant with defect (defect+contra = defect). fun9: 105 -> 81 (Chandrupatla 55). Remaining CHA gap 120: flat +88, fun1 +20, fun9 +26. Server regression x2: 1116 passed, 1 failed = the paper-number check.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 15:57:15 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 3c92d610d6 PREREG before code and run: both directions. (1) defect decision combined with the flat regime (analogy / remembered analogy) for canonical headroom; (2) contra: halve when the local secant's sign contradicts the bracket's - the fun9 cause (a near-cancelling left end, |f| doubling 17 steps in a row); traces: 3/5 fun9, 7/154 canonical, 0 flat. Composite prestep 'a+b+c', one per category; factorial grid on the proposed rule +/- G2; decided on the smoke; goal = below Chandrupatla on both; ablation of every component of the best cell.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 15:45:03 +01:00