|
Adversarial review of the artifacts found three of my numbers to be
artifacts of my own code. All three reproduced here before acceptance:
- anchor_bound presented probe rows in the same index order on both
sides, so exact twins had their tie broken onto the diagonal. 0.997 ->
0.920 on omit-size. Fixed by scrambling the T-side presentation.
- The truth is not a strict local minimum: 51 transpositions have
exactly zero energy delta. fast_pair_descent only looked stationary
because its break test treats zero as no-improvement.
- scipy's FAQ takes no n_init, so it was swallowed into unknown_options
and 'FAQ x30 restarts' computed bit-identically to plain FAQ. Replaced
with a real restart loop over P0='randomized'.
The blind ceiling for omit-size is 0.836, not 1.0: the text field has 51
exact transposition automorphisms, so T[s,s] is bitwise identical to T
and no objective f(V, P T P^T) can separate an orbit at any order. Every
synthetic accuracy was being divided by the wrong denominator.
The fifteen failed solvers share one property -- all purely quadratic or
purely spectral, none with a node-level term. Eight moments of each
node's own field row, blended with the quadratic term through
Frank-Wolfe, reach 0.837 with an energy gap of exactly zero. The term
must stay in the loop: as a seed for pure-quadratic descent it scores
0.21, pinned through the iterations it scores 0.84 -- which is also why
amplification plateaued, being itself pure-quadratic.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
|
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 -> 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 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
