| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
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>
|
|
Adds MATCHING_RESULTS.md. Entropic GW annealed and PATH both reach 0.961
on the reference field, above the 0.958 the project's own pipeline
reached after months, and neither had been run. GW reaches 0.881 on the
rank-8 field where GRAMPA reaches 0.076 -- which retires the morning's
rank-ladder conclusion, since that ladder was run entirely with GRAMPA
and GRAMPA degrades on clustered eigenvalues.
The hard instance yields to amplification rather than a better solver:
descent multiplies a partial answer by about four, so the job is to feed
it a start that is 10-20% correct rather than to replace it.
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>
|
