Skip to content

#661: compatible g-lift vs exact-lab ΔZ after the #633/#653 repairs - #663

Draft
LightChainr wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
analysis/661-glift-exact-lab
Draft

#661: compatible g-lift vs exact-lab ΔZ after the #633/#653 repairs#663
LightChainr wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
analysis/661-glift-exact-lab

Conversation

@LightChainr

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Closes #661 (leftover of #633; not a new production, not #622).

What this does

One comparison, one notes file: lifts the frozen 9-decile consensus g into the affine chart of the exact-lab quantile with the issue's formula

DZ_Q[g](u) = (g(u)−g(a))/W − (Q(u)−Q(a))(g(b)−g(a))/W²,  W = Q(b)−Q(a)

shared anchors 0.2 / 0.8 (both on g's grid; no interpolation of g), and compares unoriented (|cosine|) to ΔZ = Z_{L=4} − Z_{L=3} recomputed from the repaired census (PR #653, bond dual_fail = 0; PR #628's broken bond Z is asserted against, not copied).

Result (spin0 primary, Q = site L=3)

  • unoriented 24.87°, |cos| 0.9073
  • Q = site L=4: 24.72°; Q = bond L=3 (dual_fail = 0): 25.81°
  • equal-weighting g: 25.10° — labelled sensitivity, not a second vote (Δ < 0.3°)

Chart-exactness: Q on the deciles is recovered from the census Z exactly up to affine, and DZ_{cQ+d}[g] = DZ_Q[g]/c, so the angle does not depend on the recovery — no anchor is missing, nothing left undetermined on the lab side.

Scope, stated not hidden

Files

Reproduce:

python3 scripts/probe_invariant_shape/issue661_glift_exact_lab.py
python3 -m unittest discover -s tests -p "test_issue661*"

…over of #633).

Lift the frozen 9-decile consensus g (725 not in the freeze) into the affine
chart of the exact-lab quantile via DZ_Q[g](u) = (g(u)-g(a))/W -
(Q(u)-Q(a))(g(b)-g(a))/W^2 with shared anchors 0.2/0.8, and compare to the
repaired-census site tangent DeltaZ = Z_{L=4} - Z_{L=3} (PR #653, bond
dual_fail = 0) with unoriented |cosine|.

Primary unoriented angle 24.87 deg (|cos| = 0.9073); Q = site L=4 gives
24.72 deg, repaired bond gives 25.81 deg. Chart-exact: the lift direction is
invariant under Q -> cQ + d, so recovering Q on the deciles from the census
Z is exact, not interpolation. Equal-weighting g is a labelled sensitivity
(delta < 0.3 deg). No N725 rerun; N725 g-vs-DeltaZ remains undetermined
(no second production size). Tiny-torus/exact-lab DeltaZ cannot prove an
asymptotic mismatch in either direction.

Brings in the #655 lineage script and n725-zflow-corrected.json unchanged
from analysis/633-n725-spin0, and the repaired census-exact.json from
repair/632-bond-lab-and-wrapping-l3l4.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[P2 reanalysis] Compatible g-lift vs exact-lab ΔZ after the #633/#653 repairs

1 participant