From 2b4581723d0c5ed562528fac6b0a789adf95e3c5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: YurenHao0426 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 18:25:49 -0500 Subject: =?UTF-8?q?paper=20v2.31.8:=20Appendix=20I=20EP=20random-target=20?= =?UTF-8?q?=E2=80=96h=5FL=E2=80=96=20values=20from=20saved=20JSON?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Appendix I claimed EP random-target ‖h_L‖ "≈586 at 5 ep" and "≈2,085 at 100 ep" without a saved-JSON source. Re-measured on the saved checkpoints with consistent methodology (model.eval(), n=2048 test median), giving 557 (5 ep) and 2151 (100 ep). The ~5% discrepancy is likely model.train() vs model.eval() LN-batch-stats; the new values are reproducible. Saved results/ep_random_h_L_summary.json as the source of truth. The "26× smaller than DFA's 14,510 at 3 ep" comparison still holds (was "25×"; updated to "26×" with the new EP values). The fixed-feedback vs energy-based separation conclusion is unchanged. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) --- paper/main.pdf | Bin 500998 -> 501174 bytes 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) (limited to 'paper/main.pdf') diff --git a/paper/main.pdf b/paper/main.pdf index e744481..422ff34 100644 Binary files a/paper/main.pdf and b/paper/main.pdf differ -- cgit v1.2.3