vvsandClaude Opus 5
1b6c626f67
(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>
48 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
48 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
configurations in the sweep: 264
|
|
|
|
APS, 154 problems
|
|
| # | configuration | tuned | solved | total evals | $>2\times$ |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 1 | Chandrupatla | no | 153/154 | 2787 | 0 |
|
|
| 2 | the same rule with no safeguard at all | no | 153/154 | 2806 | 0 |
|
|
| 3 | **proposed: tent, 3-point, projection ($c=2$)** | no | 153/154 | 2806 | 0 |
|
|
| 4 | TOMS 748 | yes | 153/154 | 2820 | 0 |
|
|
| 5 | Brent | yes | 153/154 | 2889 | 0 |
|
|
| 12 | Dekker | no | 153/154 | 3158 | 0 |
|
|
| 13 | ITP, per-problem oracle | yes | 153/154 | 3260 | 0 |
|
|
| 20 | Ridders | no | 153/154 | 3313 | 0 |
|
|
| 29 | constant-free variant: earned projection | no | 153/154 | 3568 | 0 |
|
|
| 34 | ITP, recommended constants | yes | 153/154 | 3957 | 0 |
|
|
| 73 | Illinois | yes | 153/154 | 7045 | 0 |
|
|
| 79 | bisection | no | 153/154 | 7530 | 0 |
|
|
| 244 | false position | no | 127/154 | 10560 | — |
|
|
|
|
CHA, 45 problems
|
|
| # | configuration | tuned | solved | total evals | $>2\times$ |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 1 | similarity, $1-\sqrt{|z|}$, bracket scale, projection | no | 41/45 | 4516 | 0 |
|
|
| 2 | Chandrupatla | no | 40/45 | 2441 | 0 |
|
|
| 3 | ITP, per-problem oracle | yes | 40/45 | 2611 | 0 |
|
|
| 4 | similarity, $e^{-|z|}$, bracket scale, both guards | no | 40/45 | 2733 | 0 |
|
|
| 6 | ITP, recommended constants | yes | 40/45 | 2857 | 0 |
|
|
| 10 | constant-free variant: earned projection | no | 40/45 | 3020 | 0 |
|
|
| 16 | bisection | no | 40/45 | 3090 | 0 |
|
|
| 47 | **proposed: tent, 3-point, projection ($c=2$)** | no | 40/45 | 3220 | 0 |
|
|
| 164 | TOMS 748 | yes | 40/45 | 4000 | 15 |
|
|
| 226 | Brent | yes | 38/45 | 4115 | 18 |
|
|
| 228 | the same rule with no safeguard at all | no | 35/45 | 4104 | 10 |
|
|
|
|
head to head, pure.ratio.derived3.project (wins/ties/losses on problems both solve)
|
|
APS: chandrupatla 87/24/42, toms748 86/16/51, brent 102/11/40, itp 132/3/18, itp_oracle 121/4/28, bisection 152/1/0
|
|
CHA: chandrupatla 9/5/26, toms748 31/1/8, brent 30/4/4, itp 17/0/23, itp_oracle 16/0/24, bisection 21/0/19
|
|
|
|
head to head, pure.ratio.derived3.credit (wins/ties/losses on problems both solve)
|
|
APS: chandrupatla 79/3/71, toms748 77/9/67, brent 78/5/70, itp 103/10/40, itp_oracle 86/6/61, bisection 122/1/30
|
|
CHA: chandrupatla 5/0/35, toms748 24/0/16, brent 18/0/20, itp 12/20/8, itp_oracle 2/3/35, bisection 5/0/35
|
|
both sets pure.ratio.derived3.project 6026
|
|
both sets pure.ratio.derived3.credit 6588
|
|
both sets chandrupatla 5228
|
|
both sets toms748 6820
|
|
both sets brent 7004
|
|
both sets itp_oracle 5871
|