| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
The user-facing statement still carried the retired correlation
threshold. Adds the correction, the joint condition that replaces it,
the width diagnosis, and the closure of the shrink-N route.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
|
Four tests around today's additions. Two failed on first run and both
were worth having.
The degree decomposition left an O(1/n) residual on a field that is
purely additive: excluding the diagonal makes the two-way design
unbalanced, so one pass of row and column means does not remove a pure
degree effect. Swept to convergence instead. At N=256 the correction
moves the reported variance shares by under 0.001, so the refutation of
the hubness hypothesis stands unchanged -- but the instrument that
produced it now does what it claims.
The other failure was the test's own scale: two random 16-dimensional
subspaces of R^64 overlap above 0.7 by chance, which is why the real
measurements are made at N=256 where the null sits at 1.0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
