summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/CANDIDATE_REGISTER.md
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
18 hoursCorrection, same session: the width statistic does not survive its controlYurenHao0426
The replacement gate proposed this morning is refuted by a control run this afternoon. Independent noise lowers the correlation to 0.828 without narrowing the underlying signal and reaches the same measured width as a field whose captions omit one factor -- 15.7 against 15.0 -- with recovery at 94.7% and 5.6%. A second instrument built specifically to fix that, counting canonical directions that generalise to held-out scenes, fails the same way and rates Visual Genome highest of the three failing fields. Established: the correlation does not govern recovery, in both directions. Corpus overlap does control it -- the caption-suppression ladder is monotone from 96.4% to 0.0%. Not established: any statistic that predicts recovery cheaply. Documents corrected accordingly rather than quietly rephrased; the refuted claim stood for four hours and is recorded as such. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
19 hoursClose the backbone row: the prediction heldYurenHao0426
DINOv2-large, twice the depth of base and wider, leaves the shared count at exactly 15 and moves the correlation by less than the segmentation noise floor. Four vision-side interventions now raise the vision field's own rank and leave the intersection alone. The cheap tier of the register is exhausted. What remains is a corpus chosen for naturally wide overlap, promoted to the central bet, and the unbalanced formulation, promoted to the critical path since such a corpus is unlikely to arrive in bijection. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
19 hoursRetire the correlation gate: the shared spectrum governs recoveryYurenHao0426
A controlled truncation refutes the project's central go/no-go rule. Projecting the recovering synthetic fields to rank r holds the field correlation at 0.902-0.929 while recovery moves 6.2% -> 12.9% -> 95.6% across ranks 4, 8, 16. A field past the supposed 0.9 threshold recovers 13%, so correlation neither predicts nor forbids recovery and the width of the shared spectrum is what moves it. The gate becomes a joint condition on correlation and shared width, measured by principal angles against a scene-shuffled null. Neither suffices alone: 18 shared directions at 0.508 fails, 11 at 0.902 fails. With the old gate retired, natural data was finally searched: 0.0000 against 0.0039 chance. The old verdict was right, its reasoning was not. Also closes route D by measurement. rho_IT ~ sqrt(4 log N / N) rises as N falls, and at N = 16 through 96 the deepest state a strong searcher reaches is deeper than the truth in 3/3 replicates at every size. Free gains: eigenvalue-weighted projection over a wide basis with 128-dim text vectors takes the correlation 0.656 -> 0.716 and shared width 10 -> 16. Hubness refuted as an inflation hypothesis. Moving the per-image segmentation eigendecomposition onto the GPU cut batch time from 130s to 1.9s. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
21 hoursLandscape reshaping does not substitute for field correlationYuren Hao
A rank-truncation ladder from four to full rank returns chance accuracy at the natural-data correlation of 0.656, as does full-rank spectral initialisation with refinement. Coarse-to-sharp smoothing widens basins and thins decoys, and recovers nothing, so below the polynomial threshold the deficit is information the algorithm class cannot use rather than a basin it cannot find. Solver-side candidates should wait on the correlation instead of competing with it. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
21 hoursCandidate register: five factors, ordered by expected movementYuren Hao
The natural-data obstruction decomposes into field correlation, landscape shape, search strength, problem size, and orthogonal signal, and every candidate attacks exactly one. Records what is measured, what is running, and what is specified but unstarted, so branches can be eliminated in cost order rather than by preference. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>