results: close LMS upfront-calibration screen

1 files changed, 20 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/RAIN_EP_RELEASED_PROFILE.md b/RAIN_EP_RELEASED_PROFILE.md
index 1d0b4d6..1d52ad6 100644
--- a/RAIN_EP_RELEASED_PROFILE.md
+++ b/RAIN_EP_RELEASED_PROFILE.md
@@ -163,3 +163,23 @@ also compares against a costly tracker that receives a fresh exact local probe
 every ten updates. The next experiment freezes equal small upfront probe
 budgets and then removes further probes, testing whether state prediction
 improves accuracy when repeated recalibration is unavailable.
+
+## R5 equal upfront probe budgets
+
+R5 gave the intercept tracker and affine SDIL exactly the same first
+2/4/8/16 neutral observations, then disabled all further probes. It used the
+10,000/2,000 centered-EP development split for one epoch. Holdout accuracy was:
+
+| upfront probes | intercept tracker | affine SDIL | SDIL minus intercept |
+|---:|---:|---:|---:|
+| 2 | 43.75% | 44.05% | +0.30 points |
+| 4 | 41.30% | 38.10% | -3.20 points |
+| 8 | 44.90% | 44.30% | -0.60 points |
+| 16 | 45.45% | 44.00% | -1.45 points |
+
+The present normalized-LMS affine predictor does not turn a small matched
+upfront calibration budget into a reliable downstream advantage. Three of
+four budgets lose to retaining the last measured intercept. This closes
+cadence/probe-budget tuning for the current predictor; further work must change
+the local identification rule and then re-enter through a new development
+screen rather than scaling this implementation.