(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>
6 lines
326 B
Plaintext
6 lines
326 B
Plaintext
rows: old 264, new 264; only in old: []; only in new: []
|
|
CHANGED brent CHA: total 4099 -> 4115, solved 38 -> 38, over2x 18 -> 18
|
|
CHANGED chandrupatla APS: total 2785 -> 2787, solved 153 -> 153, over2x 0 -> 0
|
|
CHANGED chandrupatla CHA: total 2423 -> 2441, solved 40 -> 40, over2x 0 -> 0
|
|
unexpected changes: 0
|