Datasets:

tomyimkc
/

repro-on-structured-state-space-duality-traces

Modalities:

Formats:

Size:

Tags:

format:agent-traces

Libraries:

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions

Claude Code traces preview

Sun, Jul 26

Rebuild an EXISTING, already-judged ICML 2026 reproduction logbook so it scores far higher, honestly. Paper directory: ~/icml26-factory/papers/DKathyl3XN (paper.json holds the official claims) Canonical Space (already live, will be UPDATED in place): tomyimkc/repro-on-structured-state-space-duality Current independent-judge score: 4/10 (verified, inconclusive, toy, inconclusive, toy), judge quality "medium" WHY IT SCORED BADLY — this is the actual judge's feedback, and it is the spec for your work: The independent judge scored claims 2 and 4 INCONCLUSIVE (0 points each) and claims 3 and 5 TOY (1 point each). Its stated reasons, verbatim: - Claim 2 (Theorem 4.1, necessary-and-sufficient condition for an N-dim SSM to admit a 1-semiseparable dual): "The audit only checks a specific 3-mode diagonal recurrence against its kernel at T=64 and a relaxed duplicate-decay control at T=32; these exercise diagonal kernel structure but do not test the theorem's necessary-and-sufficient condition on diagonal blocks containing at most N new columns in any general sense." - Claim 4 (Proposition 4.1, equivalence of N-semiseparable and N-SSS representable matrices): "only provides a constructive witness for specific instances and does not implement bidirectional reconstruction needed to test the if-and-only-if equivalence." - Claim 3 (O(NTd) complexity): timing evidence was accepted but called small-scale CPU, and "the 'richer per-channel dynamics' part of the claim is not tested at all." - Claim 5 (softmax rank explosion + non-diagonal SSMs lacking an attention dual): the rank-explosion half was evidenced; "the second half about non-diagonal low-state SSMs lacking any attention dual is not tested." So: test BOTH halves of compound claims, and for an if-and-only-if, test BOTH directions plus randomised search over many instances for counterexamples. Read ~/icml26-factory/AGENT_BRIEF.md and follow it exactly (experiment-script contract, RESULT_JSON, determinism, prose-number rule, honesty rules). This is a REBUILD, so the bar is higher than a fresh paper: - Every one of the official claims needs its own experiment. The two previously-inconclusive claims are where the biggest gains are: they are currently worth ZERO. - Attack compound claims in BOTH halves. If a claim asserts X and Y, test X and test Y. - For an if-and-only-if or a necessary-and-sufficient condition, test BOTH directions, and additionally run a randomised search over many instances looking for a counterexample — finding none across a large search is real evidence; checking one hand-picked instance is not. - Scale is what converts 'toy' (1pt) into 'verified' (2pt). Use large vectorised numpy experiments with many seeds and reported spread, not a handful of points. - Do not overclaim to chase points: an inflated verdict gets overturned by the judge and costs credibility. If something genuinely cannot be tested on CPU, mark it inconclusive and say exactly why. Write fresh experiments/exp_claim<N>.py and results.json in the paper directory. Validate: ~/.venvs/icml26/bin/python ~/icml26-factory/lib/build_logbook.py ~/icml26-factory/papers/DKathyl3XN Iterate until it exits 0. Do NOT pass --publish. Report your final per-claim verdicts and how they compare to the current score. 2 messages 179 tools

Agent traces

Agent sessions published from a Trackio Logbook.

Downloads last month: 61

Number of rows:

Total file size: