summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/worldalign
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
20 hoursA cheap gate that survives its controls: the anchor boundYurenHao0426
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>
21 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>
21 hoursRecord the gate correction in the concept documentYurenHao0426
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>
21 hoursTest the new instruments; fix an O(1/n) bias in the degree decompositionYurenHao0426
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>
21 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>
23 hoursWorld Alignment: unpaired cross-modal correspondence by relational ↵Yuren Hao
identifiability Method: scene states are sets of part states; relation fields are built within each modality and are invariant to how each side labels its own features; the cross-modal bridge is a coupling searched under an energy that is a closed-form functional of one matrix; solving is spectral initialisation followed by exact local refinement. Evidence: in a procedurally generated closed world, blind recovery of a hidden image-caption correspondence reaches 95.3% at 256 scenes against 0.39% chance, and the recovered pairs transfer to 200 held-out scenes at 93.0% exact retrieval with random-pair and shuffled-image controls at or near chance. Cross-modal value correspondence is derived from disjoint corpora rather than declared. On Visual Genome the field correlation reaches 0.656 against the 0.9 that polynomial recovery needs, with the deficit attributed away from segmentation and discretisation. Protocol: no image-text pair enters any objective, optimiser, initialisation, or model selection; hidden pairs score orderings only. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>