Skip to content

Withdraw the determinism claim about the chorus collapses, and record why they collapse - #668

Merged
syncytium2 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
goals/chorus-collapse-overlap
Sep 19, 2026
Merged

syncytium2 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
goals/chorus-collapse-overlap

Conversation

@syncytium2

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

The goal page merged in #664 said 111 of chorus_norm's inner fits collapse in both draws, and read that as the failure being "deterministic given configuration, seed and fold pair, not noise." Round 2 of the chorus-collapse murderboard (#667) found the same misreading in the replicate report. It is on main in the goal page too, so it is withdrawn here.

Why it is wrong. The two draws share their configurations, seeds and fold pairs and differ only in recordings. So the per-configuration collapse rates predict an overlap on their own, with no reproducibility needed:

net cells collapsed, draw 1 collapsed, draw 2 overlap predicted if independent
chorus_norm 432 146 153 111 112.6
chorus_gain_norm 432 75 75 38 40.4

Computed from docs/learned/chorus_collapse/collapse_table.json on the chorus-collapse branch, pooling each configuration's rate across both draws. The observed overlap is what chance gives. Whether a given collapse is reproducible is a question diagnose_chorus_collapse.py replay can answer, and nobody has asked it.

In its place, the diagnosis. At a learning rate of 0.03 the head is never woken: 292 of 396 inner fits at that rate collapse against 7 of 468 below it; every collapsed inner fit has a head layer passing nothing that varies (153 of 153, 75 of 75) and no working fit does; and the same fit, replayed bit-exactly, trains at 0.01 or 0.003 or behind a 200-step warm-up. Tuning picked no lr-0.03 configuration for chorus_norm under either selection, so goal 2 paid in effective grid size rather than in a wrong answer — chorus_gain_norm being the exception, at 6 of 8 folds on F1 alone.

The source is marked for what it is: #667 landed at Tony's call with four open murderboard findings and round-2 repairs that were never blind-verified. Its readout and todo arrive with it, so those two links are noted as pending rather than presented as live.

One more line changed. The merge-gap rerun's entry dropped "and it needs no retraining" — this page cannot source that, and 064 is reporting GPU contention on the rerun — and now says where the rerun is instead.

Gates: sapper clear, check_quotes clear, check_pipelines clear. Docs only, one file.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_017hQX6iESxBsQk7Jan875e3


Generated by Claude Code

… why they collapse

The page said 111 of chorus_norm's inner fits collapse in both draws and read that as
the failure being deterministic given configuration, seed and fold pair. It is not
evidence of that. The two draws share their configurations, seeds and fold pairs and
differ only in recordings, so the per-configuration collapse rates alone predict an
overlap of 112.6 against the 111 observed, and 40.4 against 38 for chorus_gain_norm.
Computed here from the chorus-collapse branch's own collapse_table.json. Round 2 of
that branch's murderboard found the same misreading in the replicate report.

In its place, the diagnosis: at a learning rate of 0.03 the head is never woken, 292
of 396 inner fits at that rate against 7 of 468 below it, every collapsed fit with a
silent head layer and no working fit with one, and the same fit training when replayed
behind a warm-up. Its source PR is marked for what it is — landed with four open
murderboard findings and round-2 repairs that were never blind-verified.

The merge-gap rerun's line drops "needs no retraining", which this page cannot source,
and says where the rerun is instead.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017hQX6iESxBsQk7Jan875e3
@syncytium2
syncytium2 merged commit 42fb57b into main Sep 19, 2026
3 checks passed
@syncytium2
syncytium2 deleted the goals/chorus-collapse-overlap branch September 19, 2026 21:39
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.

2 participants