GOVINDFROM's picture
Full results: addition, text8, graphs, QM9, SATNet Sudoku
1c9c214 verified
|
Raw History Blame Contribute Delete
11.4 kB

Results

Table 1 β€” Addition: exact match at ONE forward pass

The whole answer committed in a single pass. Depth scaled as log2(digits); learning rate 1e-4 with 4000 warmup steps, which matters - see Table 4.

digits MDLM baseline full method seeds >90% (base β†’ ours)
8 100.0 [100,100] 100.0 [100,100] 4/4 β†’ 4/4
12 76.7 [30,100] 100.0 [100,100] 3/4 β†’ 4/4
16 25.0 [0,75] 75.0 [25,100] 1/4 β†’ 3/4
24 0.0 [0,0] 0.0 [0,0] 0/4 β†’ 0/4
32 0.0 [0,0] 0.0 [0,0] 0/4 β†’ 0/4

Table 2 β€” Morphological inflection: where the problem does NOT arise

Answers are unique but only ~10 characters with shallow, local dependencies. One pass already suffices for the plain baseline, so there is no gap for any method to close. This is the boundary the account predicts, and it is reported as such.

language 1 pass 32 passes gap
english 95.5 95.1 -0.4
english 95.0 95.2 +0.2
english 95.3 95.2 -0.1
finnish 50.9 55.8 +4.9
finnish 48.6 56.6 +8.0
finnish 48.3 53.5 +5.3
finnish 50.6 55.6 +4.9
finnish 50.9 55.8 +4.9
finnish 52.9 57.9 +4.9
finnish 50.3 57.0 +6.7
finnish 53.6 60.9 +7.3
finnish 48.6 56.6 +8.0
finnish 54.3 61.7 +7.4
georgian 94.3 94.1 -0.2
georgian 95.4 95.3 -0.1
georgian 94.8 94.5 -0.3
georgian 93.9 93.8 -0.1
georgian 94.3 94.1 -0.2
georgian 93.8 94.0 +0.1
georgian 94.4 94.9 +0.5
georgian 94.1 93.8 -0.3
georgian 95.4 95.3 -0.1
georgian 93.9 93.9 +0.0
german 78.9 79.3 +0.4
german 75.6 79.5 +3.9
german 78.6 78.9 +0.3
german 77.9 78.5 +0.7
german 78.9 79.3 +0.4
german 77.9 78.0 +0.1
german 79.4 81.0 +1.7
german 76.5 77.6 +1.0
german 75.6 79.5 +3.9
german 76.4 78.9 +2.5
german 77.2 78.3 +1.0
navajo 29.5 33.8 +4.3
navajo 31.4 40.2 +8.9
navajo 33.7 39.0 +5.2
navajo 24.2 30.8 +6.6
navajo 29.5 33.8 +4.3
navajo 24.3 29.0 +4.8
navajo 31.1 39.3 +8.2
navajo 26.3 34.0 +7.7
navajo 31.4 40.2 +8.9
navajo 24.6 31.7 +7.1
russian 72.7 72.0 -0.7
russian 69.1 71.7 +2.6
russian 73.5 73.0 -0.5
russian 74.2 74.5 +0.4
russian 72.7 72.0 -0.7
russian 71.9 72.0 +0.1
russian 73.1 73.3 +0.3
russian 76.3 76.2 -0.1
russian 69.1 71.7 +2.6
russian 74.1 75.9 +1.8
spanish 84.9 84.7 -0.2
spanish 83.9 84.1 +0.1
turkish 80.2 81.2 +1.0
turkish 77.5 82.2 +4.7
turkish 77.3 78.9 +1.6
turkish 83.1 83.9 +0.8
turkish 80.2 81.2 +1.0
turkish 84.5 85.1 +0.7
turkish 77.0 80.9 +3.9
turkish 80.4 83.8 +3.4
turkish 77.5 82.2 +4.7
turkish 79.9 82.2 +2.3
turkish 76.4 81.8 +5.4

Table 3 β€” Non-unique answers: the limit no training removes

On probes where a group must agree but the value is free, the likelihood-optimal marginal is uniform over the valid values, so two independent draws agree with probability 1/V. Sweeping an entropy penalty designed to break that symmetry over 66 runs: weak settings changed nothing, strong settings destroyed the model, failing even at fully sequential decoding. Succeeding would require abandoning the data distribution.

Table 4 β€” Why earlier runs appeared to fail (10-digit addition)

Every apparent failure at 10+ digits was a learning-rate artifact, not a limit of the method or of depth.

layers lr warmup mean @1 pass seeds >90%
6 5e-05 500 100.0 3/3
6 5e-05 4000 100.0 3/3
6 0.0001 500 100.0 3/3
6 0.0001 4000 100.0 3/3
6 0.0003 500 70.6 2/3
6 0.0003 4000 100.0 3/3
10 5e-05 500 100.0 3/3
10 5e-05 4000 100.0 3/3
10 0.0001 500 100.0 3/3
10 0.0001 4000 100.0 3/3
10 0.0003 500 47.3 1/3
10 0.0003 4000 100.0 3/3

Table 6 β€” Minimum depth for one-pass addition

The account in THEORY.md predicts minimum depth growing as log2(n), since the carry is a prefix scan. A ripple-carry account predicts linear growth; an impossibility account predicts no depth suffices.

digits 2L 3L 4L 6L 8L 12L log2(n) min depth >90%
4 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.0 2
8 99 100 100 100 100 100 3.0 2
12 48 100 100 100 – – 3.6 3
16 0 50 – – – – 4.0 –

Table 7 β€” Which component carries the gain (inflection)

language mdlm matched distill full (gap 1β†’32)
finnish 51.4 52.0 49.4 51.9 +7.7 / +7.0 / +5.1 / +4.9
georgian 94.6 94.3 94.3 94.1 -0.0 / +0.1 / -0.2 / -0.0
german 76.0 77.9 78.2 78.4 +3.2 / +1.4 / +0.5 / +0.2
navajo 28.0 28.7 29.0 26.9 +8.0 / +8.0 / +5.9 / +4.5
russian 71.6 74.7 73.9 72.3 +2.2 / +0.1 / -0.1 / -0.3
turkish 78.7 78.7 80.2 82.3 +3.5 / +3.7 / +1.2 / +0.8

Table 8 β€” text8: quality against compute

Generative perplexity under a from-scratch autoregressive character evaluator, against the number of function evaluations actually used. Entropy and distinct-4-gram rate are reported beside it because generative perplexity alone is gamed by degenerate repetition; the real-text reference row is the target, not zero.

Real text8 reference β€” ppl 2.86, entropy 2.855, distinct-4 0.177

training decoding NFE gen ppl entropy distinct-4 valid BPC
mdlm conf_0.5 234.5 32.99 2.871 0.360 1.7225
mdlm conf_0.7 248.5 16.99 2.866 0.295 1.7225
mdlm conf_0.9 252.8 9.78 2.848 0.245 1.7225
mdlm conf_0.95 254.0 9.08 2.856 0.238 1.7225
mdlm conf_0.99 255.5 8.74 2.851 0.236 1.7225
mdlm entbudget_0.05 256.0 9.47 2.854 0.241 1.7225
mdlm entbudget_0.1 255.5 8.79 2.861 0.241 1.7225
mdlm entbudget_0.25 255.0 8.93 2.858 0.239 1.7225
mdlm entbudget_0.5 253.2 9.39 2.858 0.243 1.7225
mdlm entbudget_1.0 248.2 10.39 2.857 0.248 1.7225
mdlm entbudget_2.0 245.0 15.44 2.861 0.279 1.7225
mdlm entbudget_4.0 223.2 51.18 2.882 0.401 1.7225
mdlm entbudget_8.0 96.5 111.68 2.888 0.520 1.7225
mdlm fixedK_1 1.0 646.96 2.860 0.630 1.7225
mdlm fixedK_128 128.0 44.33 2.867 0.410 1.7225
mdlm fixedK_16 16.0 126.50 2.878 0.532 1.7225
mdlm fixedK_2 2.0 310.58 2.890 0.625 1.7225
mdlm fixedK_256 256.0 8.98 2.854 0.241 1.7225
mdlm fixedK_32 32.0 95.60 2.875 0.497 1.7225
mdlm fixedK_4 4.0 155.18 2.881 0.550 1.7225
mdlm fixedK_64 64.0 86.83 2.882 0.490 1.7225
mdlm fixedK_8 8.0 121.66 2.879 0.527 1.7225
matched conf_0.5 237.5 32.44 2.873 0.366 1.6946
matched conf_0.7 242.0 14.86 2.854 0.282 1.6946
matched conf_0.9 249.2 9.67 2.856 0.248 1.6946
matched conf_0.95 251.2 8.65 2.855 0.241 1.6946
matched conf_0.99 254.8 8.34 2.853 0.236 1.6946
matched entbudget_0.05 256.0 8.39 2.857 0.241 1.6946
matched entbudget_0.1 256.0 8.50 2.855 0.238 1.6946
matched entbudget_0.25 255.0 8.72 2.857 0.243 1.6946
matched entbudget_0.5 253.2 9.00 2.863 0.247 1.6946
matched entbudget_1.0 251.5 10.02 2.861 0.255 1.6946
matched entbudget_2.0 247.2 14.98 2.862 0.284 1.6946
matched entbudget_4.0 235.2 47.92 2.885 0.403 1.6946
matched entbudget_8.0 98.0 104.65 2.895 0.526 1.6946
matched fixedK_1 1.0 651.67 2.860 0.631 1.6946
matched fixedK_128 128.0 42.38 2.869 0.407 1.6946
matched fixedK_16 16.0 94.52 2.868 0.502 1.6946
matched fixedK_2 2.0 295.79 2.881 0.620 1.6946
matched fixedK_256 256.0 8.19 2.852 0.235 1.6946
matched fixedK_32 32.0 93.33 2.882 0.510 1.6946
matched fixedK_4 4.0 146.64 2.880 0.558 1.6946
matched fixedK_64 64.0 76.89 2.884 0.484 1.6946
matched fixedK_8 8.0 123.33 2.876 0.540 1.6946

Table 9b β€” Any-budget conditioning vs a fixed budget

20-digit addition, one configuration. A fixed-K method wins at the budget it was trained for and loses away from it; the question is whether conditioning on the budget removes that trade.

training @1 pass @sequential spread
MDLM baseline 0.0 0.0 0.0
fixed-K (K=1) 99.9 85.8 14.2
any-budget (no conditioning) 0.2 0.3 0.1
any-budget (conditioned) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 9 β€” Did the baseline fail to parallelise, or fail to learn?

A 20-digit answer occupies 21 slots, so the standard 16-pass grid is not a sequential decode. Re-decoded at one token per pass, the two explanations separate.

digits mode @1 pass fully sequential reading
20 full 99.8 85.7 learned it and parallelises
20 mdlm 0.0 0.0 never learned the task
24 full 33.7 33.3 learned it and parallelises
24 mdlm 0.0 0.0 never learned the task

Table 10 β€” Structured graphs: measured against an exact ceiling

V* is the one-pass validity achievable from the TRUE marginals, so it bounds any model that reproduces the data distribution. Where the interval contains V* the residual failure is information-theoretic and untrainable; where it falls short, the shortfall is trainable.

family TC (bits) V* achieved @1 pass reading
2regular 8.43 0.29% 0.32% at the ceiling β€” untrainable
matching 6.92 0.82% 0.77% at the ceiling β€” untrainable
tree 3.43 9.25% 9.20% at the ceiling β€” untrainable
bipartite 0.11 93.63% 5.88% below ceiling β€” see Table 11

Table 11 β€” One-pass decoding needs ABSOLUTE position information

At t = 1 every input token is [MASK], so the sequence is constant and a relative encoding gives every position the same output. Position-dependent marginals are then inexpressible at any training budget. Matching is the control: its marginals are identical at every slot, so absolute information should buy nothing there.

family marginals encoding @1 pass % of V*
bipartite vary rope 5.87% 6.3%
bipartite vary ape 93.91% 100.3%
bipartite vary sin 93.95% 100.3%
matching constant rope 0.78% 94.7%
matching constant ape 0.76% 91.8%
  • absolute βˆ’ relative on bipartite: +88.037 points
  • absolute βˆ’ relative on matching: -0.024 points