From 96bb72683e7356719f94dab15bfe3c8c4266fd88 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: YurenHao0426 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 18:16:55 -0500 Subject: =?UTF-8?q?paper=20v2.31.3:=20=C2=A72=20=C2=B63=20per-block=20grow?= =?UTF-8?q?th=20values=20were=20architecture=20mix-up?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The paper claimed DFA/SB/CB had max-per-block growth of "237×, 12000×, 96×" on the 4-block d=256 ResMLP. Re-aggregating from the protocol audit JSON (results/protocol_audit/audit_table_s42_s123_s456.json) gives: DFA d=256: max growth 2043, 979, 2545 → 3-seed mean ~1856 (≈1.9e3) SB d=256: max growth 12781, 24126, 10467 → mean ~15791 (≈1.6e4) CB d=256: max growth 1820, 695, 1034 → mean ~1183 (≈1.2e3) The paper's "237" and "96" actually match the BatchNorm CNN audit (audit_cnn_3seed.json gives DFA 214/235/263 → mean 237 and CB 108/90/91 → mean 96), not the d=256 ResMLP. SB "12000" was close to ResMLP s42 single-seed (12781) but the other two values were apparently picked from the wrong architecture. This was an architecture mix-up that under-reported the d=256 ResMLP per-block growth by ~8x for DFA and ~12x for CB. Updated to the actual 3-seed mean values from the matched d=256 audit. The numbers are now an order of magnitude larger and more clearly "extreme" than the original mistaken values. The CNN per-block growth claim of "up to 237×" in §5 ¶3 (which says "the BatchNorm CNN ... shows strong growth under DFA, with max-per- block growth up to 237×") is correct — that 237 is the right value for the CNN context. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) --- paper/main.pdf | Bin 500665 -> 500841 bytes 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) (limited to 'paper/main.pdf') diff --git a/paper/main.pdf b/paper/main.pdf index e46a0be..1aa826e 100644 Binary files a/paper/main.pdf and b/paper/main.pdf differ -- cgit v1.2.3