second review round: tempered claims, robust statistics, corrected technical statements
Analyses (figures/stats_llm_epistasis.py, committed + reproducible): condition-clustered bootstrap CIs (functional measures exclude zero: dis_raw [+0.04,+0.69], conf-weighted [+0.02,+0.68]; gradient alignment [-0.59,-0.06]; geometry straddles zero), PAIRED predictor contrasts (not individually significant — stated), leave-one-condition-out held-out prediction (functional replicates, geometry ~0, performance baseline unstable), three outcome references (ordering sensitive to reference — reported, with the mechanism), between/within-axis decomposition (within-conflict identification impossible by design; the compat axis identifies), and seed-level paired reliability (routing/directed beat soup 3/3 seeds incl. one catastrophic soup failure; CI-width fragility claim withdrawn). Renames and corrections: "decisive experiment" -> "controlled predictive test"; "operational epistasis" -> "confidence-weighted functional conflict (proposed proxy)"; "functional by construction" -> "controls a major source of coordinate mismatch / conflict-associated" (module, configs, READMEs, figures); SI proposition's "chord" defined precisely (endpoint-loss interpolation, invariant) vs the path (not invariant) + no-global-optimality caveat (removable = lower bound, residual = upper); snowball count != performance cliff distinction added; claims table gains four rows (grid finding / weighting NOT supported / functional-vs- all-geometry not established / operator choice open); §1 ladder states the prediction rung as a bounded small-model result. paper/response-to-review-2.md: point-by-point, opening with the bookkeeping correction (E13b/c were in the reviewed draft — revised interpretation, not new results). READMEs rewritten around the four analyses with the chronology (prospective/adaptive/post-hoc) disclosed. 151 tests green. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BkRLcc18rwT2Lysu6PbG7v
This commit is contained in:
parent
1ae950cb7c
commit
a40ace1821
17 changed files with 418 additions and 95 deletions
|
|
@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
|
|||
"""The decisive experiment: does an operational EPISTASIS measure predict merge success PRE-merge?
|
||||
"""A controlled predictive test: does a pre-merge FUNCTIONAL-CONFLICT measure predict merge damage?
|
||||
|
||||
The external review's bar (2026-08-11): population-genetic quantities must *predict*, not re-describe —
|
||||
forecast merge success **before merging**, and beat existing predictors. This module builds a grid of
|
||||
|
|
@ -11,7 +11,9 @@ The theory-derived predictor — and its built-in ablation. A raw functional-dis
|
|||
two parents is, by our own theory, the WRONG measure: disjoint specialists disagree hugely (one knows,
|
||||
one is ignorant) yet merge perfectly — harmless *complementation*. The Dobzhansky–Muller analogue is
|
||||
**bilateral confident contradiction**: both parents confidently produce different answers to the same
|
||||
input. So the operational epistasis measure is confidence-weighted disagreement,
|
||||
input. So the framework-motivated measure is **confidence-weighted functional conflict** — a proposed proxy
|
||||
for merge-relevant interactions (bilateral confident contradiction measures incompatible endpoint
|
||||
behaviour, not non-additive interaction effects in the strict biological sense):
|
||||
|
||||
epi_conf = E_probe[ conf_A · conf_B · 1(ans_A != ans_B) ], conf = exp(mean token logprob),
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
|
|||
"""LLM-tier model speciation (E13 in language-model weights) — the conflict cliff + the duration null.
|
||||
|
||||
The real-LLM image of E13, with a structural bonus: LoRA deltas live in the frozen base's coordinate
|
||||
system, so there is **no permutation/rescaling ambiguity by construction** — any merge failure here is
|
||||
*functional* incompatibility, the residual isolated architecturally (no alignment step needed).
|
||||
The real-LLM image of E13, with a structural advantage: LoRA deltas live in the frozen base's
|
||||
coordinate system, which controls a major source of coordinate mismatch (no alignment step needed) and
|
||||
so allows a cleaner test of conflict-associated merge failure. Note the honest boundary: a failure of
|
||||
delta-averaging can still reflect nonlinear interaction, scaling, or capacity — shared coordinates
|
||||
remove the permutation explanation, they do not make every failure evidence of incompatible functional
|
||||
requirements.
|
||||
|
||||
Two knobs, mirroring the MLP experiment:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue