|
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>
|
|
Three statistics failed the same way -- fields agreeing on the number
and disagreeing on recovery -- because each was invented by staring at
the fields rather than by asking what matching needs. The fourth asks
directly: declare half the scenes anchors, hand over their
correspondence, describe the rest by their field rows against the
anchors, and match one-to-one by Hungarian assignment. Seconds to
compute, and it upper-bounds blind recovery because blind recovery must
also discover the anchor correspondence.
Never violated across six fields spanning the full range of outcomes,
and it separates every case the refuted statistics collapsed:
synth full bound 0.989 blind 0.958 gap +0.03
synth noise 0.35 bound 0.984 blind 0.947 gap +0.04
synth omit size bound 0.997 blind 0.056 gap +0.94
synth rank 8 bound 0.930 blind 0.129 gap +0.80
Visual Genome bound 0.291 blind 0.000 gap +0.29
This corrects two claims from earlier today. Caption suppression does
not destroy information -- its bound is 0.997 -- it destroys blind
searchability, by making scenes interchangeable under permutation in a
way given anchors break. And Visual Genome's problem was never spectral
width: with the correspondence handed over, seven scenes in ten still
cannot be identified.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
