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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
(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>
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>
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>
vvsandClaude Opus 5