<feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'>
<title>World-Alignment.git/worldalign/consensus_seed.py, branch main</title>
<subtitle>Unnamed repository; edit this file 'description' to name the repository.
</subtitle>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.blackhao.com/World-Alignment.git/'/>
<entry>
<title>Amplification beats the instance that defeated fifteen solvers</title>
<updated>2026-08-01T23:53:29+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>YurenHao0426</name>
<email>Blackhao0426@gmail.com</email>
</author>
<published>2026-08-01T23:53:29+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.blackhao.com/World-Alignment.git/commit/?id=de827a42e10ede662f4bd2893c4f8b6d54be45dc'/>
<id>de827a42e10ede662f4bd2893c4f8b6d54be45dc</id>
<content type='text'>
The caption-omitted field returned under 5% from every solver tried:
Umeyama, GRAMPA, five Gromov-Wasserstein variants, FAQ with and without
restarts, PATH convex-concave, a moment ladder, semirelaxed GW. The
measurements said the answer was not a sixteenth solver.

Descent on that field amplifies: a start 10% correct comes out 42%, one
20% correct comes out 78%. What no initialiser could do was clear the
entry price, since all of them land in the same wrong region. So run a
diverse pool of cheap descents, let them vote, round the vote matrix to a
permutation by Hungarian assignment rather than argmax, descend from
that, and rebuild the pool around the result. Each round feeds the
amplifier a better start.

0.044 -&gt; 0.72 on the best run, 0.54 mean over two. Competitive elsewhere:
0.977 on the easy field against 0.961 for the best GW variant.

Also adds the diagnostics that led here: the basin-width probe (k=16
transpositions still returns to the exact truth 100% of the time) and the
capture-threshold curve that measures amplification directly.

Co-Authored-By: Claude &lt;noreply@anthropic.com&gt;
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
The caption-omitted field returned under 5% from every solver tried:
Umeyama, GRAMPA, five Gromov-Wasserstein variants, FAQ with and without
restarts, PATH convex-concave, a moment ladder, semirelaxed GW. The
measurements said the answer was not a sixteenth solver.

Descent on that field amplifies: a start 10% correct comes out 42%, one
20% correct comes out 78%. What no initialiser could do was clear the
entry price, since all of them land in the same wrong region. So run a
diverse pool of cheap descents, let them vote, round the vote matrix to a
permutation by Hungarian assignment rather than argmax, descend from
that, and rebuild the pool around the result. Each round feeds the
amplifier a better start.

0.044 -&gt; 0.72 on the best run, 0.54 mean over two. Competitive elsewhere:
0.977 on the easy field against 0.961 for the best GW variant.

Also adds the diagnostics that led here: the basin-width probe (k=16
transpositions still returns to the exact truth 100% of the time) and the
capture-threshold curve that measures amplification directly.

Co-Authored-By: Claude &lt;noreply@anthropic.com&gt;
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
</feed>
