From 02d339f897eef1344f215f3035e78864688e6c6f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: YurenHao0426 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 13:51:20 -0500 Subject: Round 41 complete: 3-method cos-vs-acc dissociation with DFA+pen added MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DFA+penalty single seed s42, 30ep via cifar_resmlp.py (not the earlier dfa_residual_penalty_test.py which doesn't save nudging): - test acc: 0.3607 (matches existing 3-seed 0.363±0.001) - deep cos: +0.166 (matches existing 3-seed 0.155±0.025) - deep nudge Δloss (eta=0.01): -6e-5 (smallest) - trajectory loss decrease: 0.104 (smallest) Full 3-method comparison at 30 epochs: DFA+pen SB+pen CB+pen test acc 0.361 0.453 0.360 deep cos +0.166 +0.322 +0.684 deep nudge -6e-5 -1.78e-3 -0.45e-3 traj Δloss 0.104 0.458 0.122 KEY INSIGHT: Deep cosine ranks methods CB > SB > DFA, but ALL functional metrics (nudge, trajectory loss decrease, accuracy) rank them SB >> CB ≈ DFA. Cos is the ONLY ordering that does not predict accuracy correctly. This is the strongest form of the cos-vs-acc dissociation: the ordering implied by angular agreement is contradicted by three independent functional measurements, all of which do predict accuracy. Appendix L ¶2 updated to report all 3 methods and note the ranking contradiction. Main content still 9 pages. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) --- paper/main.pdf | Bin 485015 -> 485406 bytes 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) (limited to 'paper/main.pdf') diff --git a/paper/main.pdf b/paper/main.pdf index 5f4fe8e..7d64258 100644 Binary files a/paper/main.pdf and b/paper/main.pdf differ -- cgit v1.2.3