Human: create a new branch feat/teich-studio and move us over there then build out teich studio end to end.

users should be able to run `teich studio` after installing the package and it should launch a browser UI (similar color pallete to the screenshot but closer to the teichai orange and a slightly less warm gray)

The browser UI should be an efficient, well-designed place for them to configure their dataset generations easily, giving them a nice interface so they dont need to use an annoying and hard to navigate/understand config.yaml. They can optionally upload a prompts.jsonl or create the prompts from within the UI.

The coolest part though would be interactive mode, where it spawns a the docker container and lets the user just start a session with any of the runners and actually steer that conversation however they'd like. going session by session they can interactively create their dataset as if they were just using any of the runners themselves (the same experience as just launching one of the runners in the terminal and interacting with it)

Prioritize UX. We don't want to overwhelm anyone so organize everything in a smart way that wont scare off first-time users. Good luck!

Assistant: I'll start by exploring the repo to understand the existing structure, then build out Teich Studio.


Human: Sorry to interrupt you but I went ahead and just did my own testing. The interactive chat looks cool, but I was hoping it would give the native claude code, hermes, codex, pi terminal view. as if I had just gone into the docker container, opened my workspace and ran "hermes" or "pi", etc. Then i get the full native experience. Obviously make sure you launch it with the proper api backend and all that configured properly. But that sort of native approach is a lot better UI/UX wise than the current sloppy and ugly looking chat version.

Also why didn't you use @assets/teich.svg    for the logo? fix it.

Other than that the UI/UX is okay at best. It feels not modern enough, just a bit too plain and simple. Not to mention there is a bit of jank on smaller view ports (with the sidebar specifically). Overall the backend worked great but the frontend is underwhelming and even a little buggy. That'll require a full head to toe makeover. Modern, sleek, and intuitive.

Assistant: Good feedback — let me rework it. Plan:

1. **Native terminal interactive mode**: spawn the container and run the actual CLI (`pi`, `codex`, `claude`, `hermes`) with a PTY inside the container, streamed to the browser over WebSocket into xterm.js — the real TUI experience. Trace export on save stays (the CLIs write their session files into the same mounted dirs).
2. **Real logo** from `assets/teich.svg`.
3. **Full UI restyle** + responsive sidebar fix.

First, the Hermes/Claude native launch details I haven't read yet:


Human: 1. The save configuration button is glitchy on the setup page.
2. The logo has a white background for some reason, just use the transparent background svg.
3. I just launched teich studio and tried starting an interactive claude-code session. The container is live but the terminal UI isn't working proper. I only see: " starting container and launching claude-code …". When discarding the trace, for a moment I saw the claude-code terminal UI. just very briefly.

Assistant: Three clear bugs. The terminal one I can pin down immediately: my reader uses `BufferedReader.read(4096)`, which blocks until it accumulates a full 4KB — pi's spinner floods output so it worked, but claude-code's welcome screen is under 4KB and just sits in the buffer until the process dies (exactly why you saw the TUI flash on discard). Fixing all three:


Human: Build me a photo-realistic, highly interactive 3D digital twin of Earth.

Assistant: I'll build this as a self-contained WebGL app — a Three.js globe with real NASA-derived 8K satellite imagery, day/night terminator computed from the actual sun position, animated clouds, atmospheric scattering, live ISS tracking, and location search. Let me start by checking the workspace and pulling down the assets.


Human: Make me a realistic looking fluid simulation. All physics should be 100% accurate and true. Make the water look and flow like real water. maybe add some lighting and stuff to make the scene look pretty too. Focus on 2 things: physics accuracy and making it beautiful to watch

Assistant: I'll build you a real fluid simulation — not a visual fake. The plan: a FLIP/PIC particle–grid solver (the same family of methods used in film VFX for water) that actually solves the incompressible Euler equations with a pressure projection, then render it with a WebGL shader doing refraction, Fresnel reflection, sun specular, foam, spray, and caustics. One self-contained HTML file you can double-click.

Let me write it:


Human: im only getting around 11fps any way to optimize it?

Assistant: 11 fps means either the fragment shader is too heavy for your GPU (most likely — the composite shader evaluates the entire procedural sky, with multiple multi-octave noise calls, **3 times per pixel** at full resolution) or the canvas resolution is just too high. I'll fix both:

1. **Bake the sky into a small offscreen texture** once per frame (⅓ resolution), so the main shader does 3 cheap texture fetches instead of 3 full procedural sky evaluations per pixel
2. **Cut noise costs** in the main pass (fewer octaves, simpler wobble)
3. **Lower the pixel count** (DPR cap 1.75 → 1.25) and add **dynamic resolution scaling** that automatically drops render resolution until you hit 60 fps — without resetting the water


Human: "canitdotts: I have an idea for some double-decoder model: two decoders, like one diffusion trained for thinking quick, then the second decoder for ar? That would mean the dataset has to be engineered so that each prompt has two responses, one quick thinking, the other the final polished answer. Maybe that would reduce the load on each decoder, so the model can be smaller while still being good because now you have two components specializing in complementary stuff rather than one network doing everything? Or, maybe ignore the 'model can be smaller' fact and keep the size, but the thinker explores many many candidates then the talker reasons on which is the best and outputs it?" Build this out as a small math test model in tests/, follow agents.md persisely. Report with results. It should be a tiny model and can train in seconds on my GPU (assume its like 99% used dont kill any other processes)

Assistant: Read journal + rules per AGENTS.md.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bw7jwz5xn</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01Pt2v1cULPKDxrkHs6pgzrJ</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/189f0549-c2fc-4fc7-b50d-37cd255eabf2/tasks/bw7jwz5xn.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "Budget sweep on CPU" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Sweep done — clear story. Wait for the full suite, then journal + commit.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bd4wb0znd</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "full CPU test suite result"</summary>
<event>[Monitor timed out — re-arm if needed.]</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: The 2 failures are CUDA-specific flex tests run with GPU hidden. Try them with GPU visible:


Human: now iterate and enhance on it.

Assistant: Iterating on three findings: harder task (5-digit), asymmetric thinker/talker capacity, and majority-vote candidate selection to replace the failed log-prob ranking. Refactor module to config-driven lengths first.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b5ezyrm78</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "double-decoder iteration sweep results"</summary>
<event>{"tag": "3d_low_sym", "seed": 20260612, "baseline": 0.204, "double": 0.896, "best_of_k": 0.75, "vote": 0.88, "oracle": 1.0, "dd_params": 140062, "bl_params": 136655, "secs": 90.3}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: First result: at 3-digit/300 steps, majority vote (0.880) nearly matches greedy (0.896) and beats log-prob best-of-K (0.750). Waiting for remaining configs.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b5ezyrm78</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "double-decoder iteration sweep results"</summary>
<event>{"tag": "3d_low_sym", "seed": 7, "baseline": 0.916, "double": 0.988, "best_of_k": 0.814, "vote": 0.974, "oracle": 1.0, "dd_params": 140062, "bl_params": 136655, "secs": 90.1}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Consistent: vote 0.974 vs best-of-K 0.814. Waiting for asymmetric + 5-digit runs.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b5ezyrm78</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "double-decoder iteration sweep results"</summary>
<event>{"tag": "3d_low_asym31", "seed": 20260612, "baseline": 0.204, "double": 0.794, "best_of_k": 0.682, "vote": 0.794, "oracle": 1.0, "dd_params": 140062, "bl_params": 136655, "secs": 105.2}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Asymmetric 3+1 underperforms 2+2 on seed 1 (0.794 vs 0.896) — talker at 1 layer may be too thin even for copy work. Waiting.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b5ezyrm78</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "double-decoder iteration sweep results"</summary>
<event>{"tag": "3d_low_asym31", "seed": 7, "baseline": 0.916, "double": 0.992, "best_of_k": 0.864, "vote": 0.986, "oracle": 1.0, "dd_params": 140062, "bl_params": 136655, "secs": 100.0}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Asym mixed across seeds (worse on seed 1, tied on seed 2) — within noise, no win. 5-digit runs next, they're the long ones.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b5ezyrm78</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "double-decoder iteration sweep results"</summary>
<event>{"tag": "5d_600", "seed": 7, "baseline": 0.374, "double": 0.906, "best_of_k": 0.78, "vote": 0.88, "oracle": 1.0, "dd_params": 141214, "bl_params": 137039, "secs": 31.1}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: 5-digit @600 steps: double-decoder ahead on both seeds (0.922 vs 0.908; 0.906 vs 0.374). Waiting on 1200/2400 to see if the baseline crossover still happens at harder difficulty.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b5ezyrm78</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "double-decoder iteration sweep results"</summary>
<event>{"tag": "5d_1200", "seed": 20260612, "baseline": 0.978, "double": 1.0, "best_of_k": 0.942, "vote": 0.998, "oracle": 1.0, "dd_params": 141214, "bl_params": 137039, "secs": 184.4}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: 5-digit @1200: double-decoder hits 1.000, baseline 0.978. Two more runs.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b5ezyrm78</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "double-decoder iteration sweep results"</summary>
<event>{"tag": "5d_1200", "seed": 7, "baseline": 0.958, "double": 0.998, "best_of_k": 0.894, "vote": 0.998, "oracle": 1.0, "dd_params": 141214, "bl_params": 137039, "secs": 59.2}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Same pattern on seed 2 (0.998 vs 0.958). Awaiting the 2400-step runs.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b5ezyrm78</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "double-decoder iteration sweep results"</summary>
<event>{"tag": "5d_2400", "seed": 20260612, "baseline": 0.996, "double": 0.986, "best_of_k": 0.924, "vote": 0.98, "oracle": 1.0, "dd_params": 141214, "bl_params": 137039, "secs": 120.7}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Three runs left (5d_2400 seed 7, plus the two asymmetric 2400s).


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b5ezyrm78</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "double-decoder iteration sweep results"</summary>
<event>{"tag": "5d_2400", "seed": 7, "baseline": 0.966, "double": 1.0, "best_of_k": 0.97, "vote": 0.998, "oracle": 1.0, "dd_params": 141214, "bl_params": 137039, "secs": 113.8}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Waiting on the final two asymmetric 5-digit runs.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b5ezyrm78</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "double-decoder iteration sweep results"</summary>
<event>{"tag": "5d_2400_asym31", "seed": 20260612, "baseline": 0.996, "double": 1.0, "best_of_k": 0.962, "vote": 0.998, "oracle": 1.0, "dd_params": 141214, "bl_params": 137039, "secs": 117.0}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: One run left.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b5ezyrm78</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "double-decoder iteration sweep results"</summary>
<event>{"tag": "5d_2400_asym31", "seed": 7, "baseline": 0.966, "double": 1.0, "best_of_k": 0.978, "vote": 1.0, "oracle": 1.0, "dd_params": 141214, "bl_params": 137039, "secs": 116.4}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: All runs complete. Stopping monitor, journaling, committing.


Human: Now mesure effecncy. (real time to result)

Assistant: Measuring real time-to-result: (1) training wall-clock to reach target accuracy, (2) inference latency per problem. Adding timed harness to the module.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b53txn1o2</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "efficiency measurement results"</summary>
<event>{"measure": "time_to_90", "digits": 5, "seed": 20260612, "double_seconds_to_target": 23.83, "baseline_seconds_to_target": 16.54, "double_steps_to_target": 500.0, "baseline_steps_to_target": 600.0}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Key nuance forming: double needs fewer steps at 5 digits (500 vs 600) but pays sequential two-model training. Thinker and talker are fully independent (talker trains on ground-truth thoughts), so they could train in parallel — will report both views. Waiting for last runs.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b53txn1o2</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "efficiency measurement results"</summary>
<event>{"measure": "time_to_90", "digits": 5, "seed": 7, "double_seconds_to_target": 11.54, "baseline_seconds_to_target": 20.84, "double_steps_to_target": 400.0, "baseline_steps_to_target": 1100.0}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Seed 2 flips it hard: double 11.5 s vs baseline 20.8 s (400 vs 1100 steps) — even paying the sequential tax. Latency runs remain.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b53txn1o2</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "efficiency measurement results"</summary>
<event>{"measure": "latency", "digits": 3, "batch500_ms": {"baseline_infer_seconds": 22.0, "double_infer_seconds": 46.8, "vote_infer_seconds": 424.8}, "batch1_ms": {"baseline_infer_seconds": 1.6, "double_infer_seconds": 2.3, "vote_infer_seconds": 20.8}}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: One latency run left (5-digit).


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b53txn1o2</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "efficiency measurement results"</summary>
<event>{"measure": "latency", "digits": 5, "batch500_ms": {"baseline_infer_seconds": 76.5, "double_infer_seconds": 115.7, "vote_infer_seconds": 741.0}, "batch1_ms": {"baseline_infer_seconds": 3.1, "double_infer_seconds": 3.3, "vote_infer_seconds": 30.3}}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Done. Efficiency measured, committed (d8b45bb, e150063, journal), 23/23 tests green, pyaot clean.

## Real time-to-result (wall-clock to 90% accuracy, training only, CPU)

| task | seed | double-decoder | baseline | steps (D vs B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-digit | 1 | 7.4 s | **5.4 s** | 400 vs 400 |
| 3-digit | 2 | 8.0 s | **4.5 s** | 300 vs 300 |
| 5-digit | 1 | 23.8 s | **16.5 s** | 500 vs 600 |
| 5-digit | 2 | **11.5 s** | 20.8 s | 400 vs 1100 |

## Inference latency (trained models, ms)

| | baseline | double greedy | vote-of-8 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-digit, batch 500 | 22.0 | 46.8 | 424.8 |
| 3-digit, single prompt | 1.6 | 2.3 | 20.8 |
| 5-digit, batch 500 | 76.5 | 115.7 | 741.0 |
| 5-digit, single prompt | 3.1 | **3.3** | 30.3 |

## Honest read

1. **Training wall-clock: double-decoder loses unless its step advantage is big.** It trains two models sequentially (~1.7× per step), so equal step counts (3-digit) mean strictly slower. It only wins when decomposition slashes steps hard — 5-digit seed 2: 2.75× fewer steps → 1.8× faster to 90%.
2. **The tax is removable.** Thinker and talker are fully independent (talker trains on ground-truth thoughts, never thinker output) — train them in parallel on two devices and wall-clock becomes max() not sum(), flipping 3-digit to parity and widening the 5-digit win. Not measurable this session (GPU still fully occupied).
3. **Single-prompt inference is near-parity** (3.3 vs 3.1 ms at 5 digits): diffusion thinker costs 6 fixed parallel passes regardless of length while AR cost grows linearly with output — [...]


Human: make it more effecent

Assistant: Two efficiency levers: (1) training — talker converges far faster than thinker (oracle 100% early), so train it on a fraction of the steps; (2) inference — consensus voting that stops sampling candidates once they agree, instead of always paying K=8. Implement + prove.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bzfkdp7qn</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "efficiency improvement measurements"</summary>
<event>{"measure": "time_to_90_frac25", "digits": 5, "seed": 20260612, "double_seconds_to_target": 7.77, "baseline_seconds_to_target": 11.12, "double_steps_to_target": 500.0, "baseline_steps_to_target": 600.0}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: 5-digit seed 1 flips too: 7.8 vs 11.1 s (was 23.8 vs 16.5). Remaining runs in flight.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bzfkdp7qn</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "efficiency improvement measurements"</summary>
<event>{"measure": "time_to_90_frac25", "digits": 5, "seed": 7, "double_seconds_to_target": 6.37, "baseline_seconds_to_target": 21.44, "double_steps_to_target": 400.0, "baseline_steps_to_target": 1100.0}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Sweep clean: double now wins all four time-to-90 cells. Accuracy-parity and consensus-vote checks next.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bzfkdp7qn</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "efficiency improvement measurements"</summary>
<event>{"measure": "acc_frac25_5d1200", "seed": 20260612, "double": 1.0, "vote": 0.998, "oracle": 1.0}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Accuracy holds at 25% talker steps (1.000). Final checks pending.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bzfkdp7qn</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "efficiency improvement measurements"</summary>
<event>{"measure": "acc_frac25_5d1200", "seed": 7, "double": 0.998, "vote": 0.998, "oracle": 1.0}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Parity on both seeds. Diffusion-steps and consensus measurements left.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bzfkdp7qn</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "efficiency improvement measurements"</summary>
<event>{"measure": "diffusion_steps", "steps": 3, "acc": 0.988, "ms": 55.4}
{"measure": "diffusion_steps", "steps": 4, "acc": 0.99, "ms": 66.0}
{"measure": "diffusion_steps", "steps": 6, "acc": 0.99, "ms": 74.2}
{"measure": "vote_compare_5d", "full_vote_acc": 0.984, "full_vote_ms": 671.3, "consensus_acc": 0.982, "consensus_ms": 404.6, "candidates_used": 5}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: All measurements in. Adopting talker fraction 0.25 as default (parity proven), then journal + final report.


Human: how much more effecent is it than normal on infer tasks? (random 1000 questions, give %)

Assistant: Measuring directly: 1000 random unseen questions, trained models, baseline AR vs double-decoder inference wall-time.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b35o0kuhe</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01VhvYYsJGbfjvEWBkGvvefM</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/189f0549-c2fc-4fc7-b50d-37cd255eabf2/tasks/b35o0kuhe.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "1000-question inference efficiency measurement" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Straight answer: **on pure inference it is not more efficient — it's slower than normal.** 1000 random unseen questions, trained models, CPU, 5 timed repeats:

| metric | normal (single AR) | double-decoder | difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-digit, 1000 batched | 39.7 ms | 92.3 ms | **+132% slower** (2.3×) |
| 5-digit, 1000 batched | 76.6 ms | 156.0 ms | **+104% slower** (2.0×) |
| 3-digit, single question | 1.81 ms | 2.77 ms | **+53% slower** |
| 5-digit, single question | 2.39 ms | 3.09 ms | **+29% slower** |
| consensus vote-of-K | — | ~12–13× baseline | for +0% accuracy here |

Accuracy on the same 1000 questions: identical (3-digit 100% both; 5-digit 99.1% vs 99.0%).

Why: at inference the double pipeline runs 6 diffusion passes *plus* the same AR answer decode the baseline runs alone. Two structural notes:

1. **The efficiency win lives in training, not inference** — time-to-90%-accuracy is where it beats normal by up to 70% (previous measurement: 6.4 s vs 21.4 s).
2. **The inference gap shrinks as answers get longer** (+53% → +29% from 3 to 5 digits): the diffusion thinker costs a fixed 6 passes regardless of length, while AR cost grows per token. Extrapolating, single-query crossover lands around 7–9 digit answers — beyond that the double-decoder would be the *faster* inference too. Unmeasured; journaled as the open follow-up.


Human: is it more accurate? Why is it slower? it should be faster because it can use diffusion to make a quick response and think deeper about hard ons

Assistant: ## Is it more accurate?

At full training: **tie**. 1000-question test: 5-digit 99.1% vs 99.0%, 3-digit 100% vs 100% — within noise. Accuracy advantage exists only when training is limited or task hard: 5-digit at 600 steps, double 90.6% vs baseline 37.4% (seed 2); double reached 100% at budgets where baseline plateaued at 96.6%. So: more accurate per unit of training, equal at convergence on this task.

## Why slower?

Because the current pipeline is **additive, not adaptive**. Every query runs:

1. Thinker: 6 diffusion passes → scratchpad
2. Talker: full AR decode of the answer (same cost as the entire baseline)

The thinker is a *prefix* to the AR decode, never a *replacement* for it. Baseline = 1 stage; double = 2 stages, always both. Slower by construction.

## Your expectation is right — the design just doesn't implement it yet

What you're describing is adaptive compute: diffusion drafts a quick answer cheaply (parallel, fixed passes regardless of length), and the deep path only fires on hard questions. Current architecture can't do that because the thinker only emits the scratchpad, never the answer — so the AR talker is mandatory 100% of the time.

The fix, concretely:

1. **Thinker diffuses scratchpad + answer together** (one field, still parallel — 2-3 passes can draft the whole thing, vs answer_len sequential AR steps)
2. **Confidence gate**: if the thinker's minimum token confidence is high (easy question), emit the diffusion answer directly — *zero* AR steps; this would be genuinely faster than the baseline, not just competitive
3. [...]


Human: do that please

Assistant: Building the confidence-gated adaptive pipeline: thinker diffuses scratchpad+answer jointly; high-confidence rows exit with the diffusion answer (no AR); low-confidence rows escalate to the talker.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b221f5zq7</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "adaptive decode measurements"</summary>
<event>{"digits": 3, "baseline_ms": 36.8, "baseline_acc": 0.973, "gates": {"0.5": {"ms": 106.2, "acc": 0.998, "fast_frac": 0.436}, "0.9": {"ms": 112.6, "acc": 0.998, "fast_frac": 0.305}, "0.98": {"ms": 125.7, "acc": 0.998, "fast_frac": 0.196}, "0.999": {"ms": 142.2, "acc": 0.998, "fast_frac": 0.046}, "ds2_g0.98": {"ms": 74.7, "acc": 0.999, "fast_frac": 0.196}, "ds3_g0.98": {"ms": 86.5, "acc": 1.0, "fast_frac": 0.196}}}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: 3-digit in: adaptive more accurate than baseline (0.998–1.000 vs 0.973) but still slower batched (74.7 ms best vs 36.8). Fast-path fraction is the bottleneck (20–44%). 5-digit pending.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b221f5zq7</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "adaptive decode measurements"</summary>
<event>{"digits": 5, "baseline_ms": 83.4, "baseline_acc": 0.98, "gates": {"0.5": {"ms": 167.3, "acc": 0.997, "fast_frac": 0.573}, "0.9": {"ms": 187.0, "acc": 0.997, "fast_frac": 0.405}, "0.98": {"ms": 197.6, "acc": 0.997, "fast_frac": 0.295}, "0.999": {"ms": 229.7, "acc": 0.997, "fast_frac": 0.1}, "ds2_g0.98": {"ms": 111.1, "acc": 0.985, "fast_frac": 0.293}, "ds3_g0.98": {"ms": 128.1, "acc": 0.992, "fast_frac": 0.295}}}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Built, measured, committed (af57885, 0aa0e87, 5554a62). 31/31 tests, pyaot clean.

## What was built

Exactly your design: thinker now diffuses **scratchpad + answer together** in one parallel field. A confidence check re-scores the field; rows where every answer token is confident exit immediately with the diffusion answer (zero AR steps). Only uncertain rows escalate to the AR talker.

## Results (1000 unseen questions, trained models)

**Accuracy — yes, now it's genuinely more accurate than normal:**

| task | baseline | adaptive | fast-path % (gate 0.98) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-digit | 97.3% | **99.8–100%** | 20% |
| 5-digit | 98.0% | **99.7%** | 30% |

Accuracy is flat across the whole gate sweep (0.5 → 0.999) — the confidence signal cleanly identifies which rows the quick diffusion answer already has right, and the talker only fires where it actually helps. That's your "think deeper about hard ones" working as intended, and it's why this variant finally beats the baseline outright.

**Latency — better than before, still not under the baseline:**

Best points: 3-digit 74.7 ms vs baseline 36.8 (2 diffusion steps, 99.9% acc); 5-digit 128.1 vs 83.4 (3 steps, 99.2%). Down from 2.3× to ~1.5–2.0×.

## Why the fast path doesn't beat this baseline yet

Three measured reasons, all scale artifacts rather than flaws in your idea:

1. **Safe gates only pass 20–30% of rows fast** — the rest pay diffusion *and* talker. (Gate 0.5 passes 44–57% with zero accuracy loss; one seed isn't enough to relax the default.)
2. **The answers are 4–6 tokens.** Diffusion's [...]


Human: what if you do english text? Like the traning pipeline.

Assistant: Good question — that's the real test. Honest assessment of what transfers and what breaks:

## The dataset problem is the crux

The math experiment worked because the "quick thinking" response was *programmatically derivable* (column sums + carries). FineWeb English text has no such annotation, so the engineered two-response dataset — your original requirement — has to come from somewhere:

1. **Structural gist (cheap, my recommendation):** thinking = a compressed skeleton of the next text span — stopwords stripped, content words kept, or every-Nth-token sketch. Computable on the fly during data loading at zero cost, exactly like the math scratchpad. The thinker diffuses the gist of "what comes next" globally and in parallel; the talker AR-expands it into fluent text. This mirrors how diffusion LMs plan globally while AR handles local fluency.
2. **Teacher-generated drafts:** a bigger model writes a quick-thinking draft per passage. Quality data but generating it for a 2B-token budget is days of GPU we don't have.
3. **SFT-stage only:** the 951 tool-use conversations in `data/sft.jsonl` could each get an engineered thinking field — small enough to be practical, but only touches instruction tuning, not pretraining.

## What breaks in the real pipeline

- **Benchmarks assume one LM.** The leaderboard scores wiki *byte perplexity* of a single checkpoint; a talker conditioned on a generated scratchpad isn't a comparable LM. The two-decoder system would need its own eval story (conditioned PPL isn't apples-to-apples), and SLERP/tournament machinery [...]


Human: Please build that

Assistant: No regression. Step 2: text experiment module.


Human: continue

Assistant: While it runs (~20-30 min CPU): docs entries for the text module.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bnj2hnqfe</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "english text experiment results"</summary>
<event>{"steps": 500, "seed": 20260612, "double_ce": 2.6761, "double_bpb": 3.861, "oracle_ce": 2.6179, "baseline_ce": 2.281, "baseline_bpb": 3.291, "double_acc": 0.2377, "oracle_acc": 0.2607, "baseline_acc": 0.3524, "double_train_s": 27.2, "baseline_train_s": 38.6}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: First English result is a clear negative: baseline CE 2.28 beats double 2.68 — and crucially even the *oracle* gist (2.62) loses to the baseline. The gist isn't adding usable information. Waiting for the 1500-step runs to confirm.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bnj2hnqfe</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "english text experiment results"</summary>
<event>{"steps": 500, "seed": 7, "double_ce": 2.6872, "double_bpb": 3.877, "oracle_ce": 2.6189, "baseline_ce": 2.3105, "baseline_bpb": 3.333, "double_acc": 0.2364, "oracle_acc": 0.2603, "baseline_acc": 0.3494, "double_train_s": 25.8, "baseline_train_s": 39.4}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Same on seed 2. Two 1500-step runs left.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bnj2hnqfe</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "english text experiment results"</summary>
<event>{"steps": 1500, "seed": 20260612, "double_ce": 2.711, "double_bpb": 3.911, "oracle_ce": 1.7197, "baseline_ce": 1.8744, "baseline_bpb": 2.704, "double_acc": 0.2957, "oracle_acc": 0.5202, "baseline_acc": 0.4658, "double_train_s": 77.6, "baseline_train_s": 115.7}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: 1500 steps flips one part: **oracle** gist now beats baseline (CE 1.72 vs 1.87, acc 52.0% vs 46.6%) — a good gist genuinely helps. But the sampled gist (double 2.71) is far worse; the thinker can't predict future content words. One run left.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bnj2hnqfe</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "english text experiment results"</summary>
<event>{"steps": 1500, "seed": 7, "double_ce": 2.8806, "double_bpb": 4.156, "oracle_ce": 1.7899, "baseline_ce": 1.8915, "baseline_bpb": 2.729, "double_acc": 0.2773, "oracle_acc": 0.4997, "baseline_acc": 0.4652, "double_train_s": 75.6, "baseline_train_s": 113.5}</event>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Built and measured on **real FineWeb bytes** from the pipeline's own token cache. Committed (c305728, e4d6435, f7f9890, journal), 40/40 tests, pyaot clean.

## Setup

`tests/double_decoder_text.py`: context 64 bytes → thinking = stopword-stripped content-word gist of the next 64-byte continuation (computed programmatically, like the math scratchpad) → talker AR-decodes the continuation conditioned on it. vs depth-matched 4-layer AR baseline. 20k train / 500 held-out examples, byte vocab, 2 seeds.

## Results (held-out continuation, 1500 steps)

| | CE (nats/byte) | byte accuracy | train time |
|---|---|---|---|
| baseline AR | 1.87 / 1.89 | 46.6% / 46.5% | 116 s |
| double (sampled gist) | 2.71 / 2.88 | 29.6% / 27.7% | 78 s |
| **double (oracle gist)** | **1.72 / 1.79** | **52.0% / 50.0%** | 78 s |

## The split verdict

**Sampled gist: fails.** The thinker must predict which content words appear in text it hasn't seen — that *is* language modeling, not a decomposable subtask. Its noisy gists actively mislead the talker below baseline, and it gets worse with training as the talker trusts the gist more.

**Oracle gist: wins.** Given the true gist, the 2+2-layer talker beats the deeper baseline by 0.15 nats/byte and +5 points byte accuracy, in 2/3 the training time. The two-response structure carries real signal for English — the failure is purely in *predicting* the gist.

**Why math worked and text didn't:** in math, the scratchpad was a deterministic function of the **prompt** (visible input — carries are computable). In text, the gist is a [...]


Human: is it worth adding to the offical prodcution pipelien?

Assistant: **No — not now.** Evidence-based verdict:

## Against (decisive)

1. **Pretraining is the production pipeline, and there the result is a clean negative.** Sampled-gist double-decoder: CE 2.71–2.88 vs baseline 1.87–1.89 on the pipeline's own FineWeb data. Worse, and it degrades with more training. That's the bulk of what `train.py` does.
2. **The only wins are out-of-regime for production.** Math-style tasks (scratchpad derivable from the prompt) and oracle gists (which don't exist at inference). Neither describes FineWeb pretraining.
3. **Integration cost is large.** Two models break every downstream stage: SLERP/tournament merges single checkpoints; the leaderboard scores single-LM byte perplexity (a gist-conditioned talker isn't comparable — would likely *hurt* the 60.41 champion's wiki PPL); STM, benchmarks, checkpoint schema all assume one network. Plus the training-change rule: each pipeline change needs its own 2B verification run — expensive for a feature with negative pretraining evidence.
4. Inference is 1.3–2× slower at production-relevant lengths, and accuracy parity at convergence even on the favorable math task.

## What survives

The oracle result (gist-conditioned talker beats a deeper baseline by 0.15 nats/byte at 2/3 training cost) is real signal — it says the structure pays **when the thinking is derivable from visible input**. In the production pipeline, exactly one stage matches: **SFT**, where the prompt largely determines the target.

## Recommendation

Keep it as what it is — a completed, well-documented experiment in [...]


Human: make me an online multiplayer game i can play with my friends. I want it to be like super smash bros. a 2D platform fighter. generate all the assets, make realistic fighting animations for each character and everything. on the start screen we wait for everyone to join, then the next screen is character selection, then the next screen is map selection, then we start the battle. each character has 3 lives. if they fall off they lose a life, last player standing wins and the cycle repeats.

Assistant: I'll build you a complete 2D platform fighter — Node.js WebSocket server (authoritative physics, lobbies, stocks) plus a canvas client with procedurally generated characters, skeletal fighting animations, maps, particles, and sound. Let me check the environment first.


Human: finish up

Assistant: The join screen looks great — all four fighters render with distinct designs. Let me also visually verify the battle scene (maps + fighters mid-fight) with a static render harness:


Human: is this methodology full-proof? like will it actually work for cross family distillation? if so has it ever been done before? is it worth it to write a short paper on this and upload this repo?

Assistant: Let me look at the repo first so I'm judging your actual methodology, not a guess.


Human: How do I start this?

Assistant: Run:

```bash
node server/index.js
```

Serves at `http://localhost:3000` (auto-bumps port if busy, override with `PORT=xxxx`). Zero config — loads DB, seeds, serves `public/` + API + websocket. Deps already installed (`node_modules` exist).


Human: Kill whatever is using 3001

Assistant: Killed. Was old `node server/index.js` (pid 2641071). Port 3001 free now.


Human: Take a look at this project. It needs to be 100% hardened and foolproof. I can't have AI making bad decision and causing a massive failure that ends up costing my company a lot of money because we didn't do our job of title search and approval properly.

Assistant: I'll take a thorough look at the project structure first to understand what we're working with.


Human: Can you fix this? I get this message sometimes.   /usr/lib/python3.12/multiprocessing/resource_tracker.py:254: UserWarning: resource_tracker: There appear to be 8 leaked semaphore objects to clean up at shutdown
    warnings.warn('resource_tracker: There appear to be %d '

Assistant: Warning mean: Python multiprocessing/`multiprocessing.Pool` or `concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor` not cleaned up before exit. Semaphores leak, resource_tracker complain at shutdown. Harmless mostly, but signal of sloppy shutdown.

Common causes + fixes:

1. **Pool/Executor never closed.** Use context manager:
```python
with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool:
    ...
# or
with ProcessPoolExecutor() as ex:
    ...
```

2. **`pool.terminate()` or hard exit (`sys.exit`, ctrl-C, `os._exit`) while workers alive.** Call `pool.close(); pool.join()` first.

3. **Library cause it, not your code.** Big offenders: PyTorch `DataLoader(num_workers>0)`, sklearn/joblib `n_jobs>1`, sentence-transformers. "8 leaked semaphores" smell like joblib/loky or torch workers. Often benign warning, fixed by upgrading library or setting `num_workers=0`/`n_jobs=1` to confirm source.

Which script/program print this? Tell me what run, I find exact cause and fix.


Human: add animations. make it look super duper high quality. (slm_alliance.html). do nto make it look like AI.

Assistant: Now hero motion + grid drift:


Human: alr I like it, small changes.  Bu can you say Glint Research is the main developer. Also, overhaul the ENTIRE ui.

Assistant: Overhaul plan: switch from dark/gold to ivory editorial look — paper background, terracotta accent, hairline grid, grayscale avatars that color on hover, numbered sections, Glint Research pulled out as featured "Lead Developer" card. Same animation system stays. Splicing with script since file holds 700KB of base64.


Human: remove em-dashes, add sick AF animations, like those hand drawn wiggly animations anthropic does. Also, dont use that eggshell color scheme (looks too AI)

Assistant: Dark warm palette + frame-by-frame "boil" squiggles (Anthropic's hand-drawn wobble trick: 3 SVG path variants cycling on steps). Em-dashes out. Splicing:


Human: they wave too much, its like a hand drawn image. but you cant look at the orignal and have to draw it again from memory so the shape changes slightly every time

Assistant: Right, frame 2 was phase-inverted so it flips. Fix: same base stroke each frame, only ±1px jitter, like redrawing from memory.


Human: its not enough movement. Also by waves I meant the drawings moved like waves because of the jitter.

Assistant: More amplitude, plus a 4th frame so the loop reads as random redraws not a rhythm:


Human: THats about the speed, but turn it up slightly. Now remove them bein actual waves. and make the end logo be white and have that look to it. (sorry for huge HTML dump) <!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8" />
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1" />
<title>Drop Anywhere SVG Stroke Logo Intro</title>
<style>
  html,body{margin:0;min-height:100%;background:#18181b;display:grid;place-items:center;font-family:system-ui,sans-serif;}
</style>
</head>
<body>

<!-- COPY FROM HERE -->
<div class="ai-drop-logo-202606" data-duration="0.9" data-path-stagger="0.19" data-stroke-width="3" data-split-pieces="48" data-order="outside-in" aria-label="Animated logo intro">
  <style>
    .ai-drop-logo-202606{
      --logo-size:min(72vmin,560px);
      --stroke-color:#FAFAF9; /* Changed stroke to light color so it's visible on dark bg */
      --duration:.9s;
      --fill-delay:2.2s;
      width:var(--logo-size);
      aspect-ratio:1/1;
      display:grid;
      place-items:center;
      position:relative;
      overflow:hidden;
      border-radius:0;
      background:transparent; /* Transparent background */
      isolation:isolate;
    }
    .ai-drop-logo-202606,
    .ai-drop-logo-202606 *{box-sizing:border-box;}
    .ai-drop-logo-202606 > svg{
      width:100%;
      height:100%;
      display:block;
      overflow:visible;
      filter:drop-shadow(0 10px 24px rgba(0,0,0,.12));
      animation:aiLogoCameraIn202606 1.15s cubic-bezier(.2,.8,.18,1) both;
    }
    /* Hide the static background completely */
    [...]

Assistant: Three changes: faster boil, straighten the squiggles into hand-drawn lines instead of waves, and the stroke-draw logo at the page end (white, plays when scrolled into view).


Human: NO, remove those lines (that used to be waves). Then turn the logo animtion into the orange line wave thing. (empty space to the right of Bigger isn't better.
 text).

Assistant: Removing all the line squiggles (keeping the circle, which wasn't a wave), and moving the logo into the hero's right side with orange strokes:


Human: its not wavy, you didnt need to change the layout. Dont include the sparkle thing at the end too

Assistant: Making the logo strokes actually wavy (turbulence-displacement boil on the whole logo), reverting the grid layout to absolute positioning in the hero's empty space, and removing the light-sweep sparkle:


Human: its not like, smooth. I can see bits jumping up but its not smooth

Assistant: Swapping the discrete seed flips for a continuously animated turbulence frequency, so the warp flows instead of jumping:


Human: no, like keep the randomnes but  make the lines thicker and require the ones next to it to like smoothly transition

Assistant: Got it: random frame jumps stay, but the noise gets much lower frequency and one octave, so displacement varies smoothly along a stroke (neighbors move together, no fine-grain crawl). Plus thicker lines:


Human: Like this.[Image #3] but every time the frame shifts it will smoothly ranfomize it as if drawing from emory

Assistant: The image's look needs the warp to *glide* through new random poses instead of cutting between them. Seeds can't interpolate, but panning the noise field does exactly this - every point slides smoothly through new random displacement. Implementing with an animated `feOffset` on the turbulence:


Human: ew nope. I can clearly see theres like a werid rotating warp effect

Assistant: The panning was a coherent drift, yeah. New approach: two noise generators crossfading into each other - while one is invisible it silently re-seeds, so the logo continuously melts from one random pose to the next with no direction or rotation to track:


Human: No no. Research the thing where anthropic has the animated head placed in a hand and it has the wiggle effect I want.

Assistant: The Camillo Visini article is exactly this - recreating Anthropic's hand-drawn motion. Fetching the exact technique:


Human: its laggy and way too jittery. its not as smooth as I would like it.

Assistant: Two fixes: smooth tweened motion instead of hard 100ms jumps, and cheaper filter (1 octave, capped update rate) so it doesn't lag:


Human: I can see lines moving, its even more gitchy. Fully replicate the anthropic effect.

Assistant: Done. I checked anthropic.com directly: their wiggling illustrations are pre-rendered `.webm` flipbooks - the frames hard-cut between poses several times a second, there's no smooth morph. So I've replicated that model:

- **No animation between poses** - all the tweening/gliding JS is gone. The turbulence seed flips through 6 values every 190ms (~5fps), each one a complete new "redraw."
- **Why it won't look like the earlier "bits jumping" version** - that one used fine-grained noise (features ~90 units wide), so individual fragments twitched independently. Now `baseFrequency` is 0.0028: each noise feature spans ~350 units of the logo, so a whole limb of a stroke bends as one smooth curve per frame - coherent poses, like a person redrawing the same picture, which is what your reference image's frames do.
- **Performance** - one filter recompute per flip (5/sec) instead of 20/sec continuous, single octave. This is about as cheap as a live SVG boil gets.

If a flip still feels too violent, lower `scale="38"`; if too subtle, raise it. Cadence is the `190` ms interval.

Sources: [Camillo Visini - Simulating Hand-Drawn Motion with SVG Filters](https://camillovisini.com/coding/simulating-hand-drawn-motion-with-svg-filters), [anthropic.com](https://www.anthropic.com) (asset inspection: illustrations served as `.webm` video flipbooks).


Human: I still see some parts what are way out of the avarage line, it should do this. Take a single line -> slightly stretch some parts out -> make some parts thinner. it should know about the past iteratrions so it can look natral

Assistant: What you're describing is a bounded random walk: each frame derived from the previous (temporal memory), mean-reverting so nothing strays far from the average line, plus a second fine layer that locally stretches/thins stroke edges. Implementing: two displacement passes (broad bend + subtle thickness texture), both panned per-frame by an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck walk instead of independent seeds:


Human: move the logo up and to the right

Assistant: Moved: the logo now anchors at the hero's right edge (`right: 0` instead of `2rem`) and centers around the 32% height mark instead of 50%, so it sits noticeably higher and further right. If you want it even tighter to the corner, drop `top` toward 25% or give `right` a negative value.


Human: I want you to read agents.md, then follow this experment. THe STM paper is pasted below, use it. I want you to run a 2B model training run on 10% of fineweb-edu
  (python3 train.py 2 100), but use STM on the ordinary version of the model (non SLERP, latest checkpoint) and then do slerp. Log the place on leaderboard. then to STM
  on the best SLERP, then slerp once STM is done on that one. log results. Which is better than baseline? (if any). BASELINE: final results:
    champion: gen1_gen0_step_00007630+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00007630+step_00007630@t0.66@t0.35
    wikitext-2 byte perplexity: 5.167
    blimp accuracy: 57.48
    arc-easy accuracy: 33.00
    leaderboard placement: overall 58.31 (rank 16/36), efficiency 9.69 (rank 10/36)
  .   STM: https://glint-research-glint-research-papers.static.hf.space/Papers/STM_paper-md.html

Assistant: Read agents.md and fetch STM paper first.


Human: Continue

Assistant: Skip task tracker. Sandbox-first: write tests, then module. Quick look at optimizer + tournament signatures.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bi08vsm7e</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "STM exp1 progress and failures"</summary>
<event>stm pool: 124756 samples of 513 tokens, source step 7630
stm epoch 1: pool 124756 mean loss 1.2360 saved step_00007730.pt
stm epoch 2: pool 124756 mean loss 1.2146 saved step_00007830.pt
stm epoch 3: pool 122816 mean loss 1.2070 saved step_00007930.pt
stm epoch 4: pool 121403 mean loss 1.2015 saved step_00008030.pt
stm epoch 5: pool 119852 mean loss 1.1978 saved step_00008130.pt
stm epoch 6: pool 118034 mean loss 1.1955 saved step_00008230.pt
stm done: 115996 of 124756 samples survived
loading benchmark datasets (wikitext-2, blimp, arc-easy)
step_00002000: wiki_ppl 6.111 blimp 53.13 arc 28.00
step_00004000: wiki_ppl 5.600 blimp 54.21 arc 28.00
step_00006000: wiki_ppl 5.613 blimp 56.39 arc 32.40
step_00007630: wiki_ppl 5.139 blimp 57.55 arc 31.00
step_00007730: wiki_ppl 4.784 blimp 57.84 arc 30.20
step_00007830: wiki_ppl 4.744 blimp 58.00 arc 30.60
step_00007930: wiki_ppl 4.726 blimp 58.46 arc 29.60
step_00008030: wiki_ppl 4.699 blimp 58.75 arc 30.00
step_00008130: wiki_ppl 4.683 blimp 58.93 arc 31.00
step_00008230: wiki_ppl 4.669 blimp 59.00 arc 31.00
best checkpoint before slerp:
gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.664 blimp 59.31 arc 31.40
gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.661 blimp 59.31 arc 30.80
gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.661 blimp 59.22 arc 31.00
gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.665 blimp 59.19 arc 30.60
gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80: [...]

Assistant: STM pass clearly helped the raw checkpoint (wiki PPL 5.139 → 4.669, BLiMP 57.55 → 59.00 before any merging). Tournament running — waiting for final champion and placement.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bi08vsm7e</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "STM exp1 progress and failures"</summary>
<event>gen0_step_00008130+step_00007930@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.683 blimp 59.34 arc 29.40
gen0_step_00008130+step_00007930@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.688 blimp 59.06 arc 29.80
gen0_step_00008130+step_00007930@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.693 blimp 58.76 arc 29.20
gen0_step_00008130+step_00007930@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.700 blimp 58.43 arc 29.20
gen0_step_00008130+step_00007930@t0.80: wiki_ppl 4.710 blimp 58.39 arc 29.80
gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.774 blimp 58.40 arc 32.00
gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.894 blimp 58.01 arc 33.00
gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.50: wiki_ppl 5.039 blimp 57.61 arc 32.40
gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.65: wiki_ppl 5.195 blimp 57.28 arc 32.20
gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80: wiki_ppl 5.362 blimp 56.58 arc 33.40
gen0_step_00008030+step_00007830@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.699 blimp 58.66 arc 29.80
gen0_step_00008030+step_00007830@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.703 blimp 58.60 arc 31.00
gen0_step_00008030+step_00007830@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.708 blimp 58.28 arc 30.60
gen0_step_00008030+step_00007830@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.718 blimp 58.39 arc 30.20
gen0_step_00008030+step_00007830@t0.80: wiki_ppl 4.729 blimp 58.46 arc 30.00
gen0_step_00008030+step_00007930@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.698 blimp 59.04 arc 30.00
gen0_step_00008030+step_00007930@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.697 blimp 58.69 arc 29.80
gen0_step_00008030+step_00007930@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.702 blimp 58.64 arc 29.40
gen0_step_00008030+step_00007930@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.707 blimp [...]

Assistant: Tournament generation 0 sweep in progress. Waiting for final results.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bi08vsm7e</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "STM exp1 progress and failures"</summary>
<event>gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.709 blimp 59.13 arc 33.40
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.696 blimp 59.36 arc 32.00
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.684 blimp 59.27 arc 31.80
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.80: wiki_ppl 4.674 blimp 59.09 arc 32.20
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.727 blimp 59.34 arc 32.40
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.708 blimp 59.25 arc 32.60
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.693 blimp 59.31 arc 32.00
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.682 blimp 59.31 arc 32.40
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.80: wiki_ppl 4.672 blimp 59.16 arc 32.20
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.728 blimp 59.24 arc 31.60
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.709 blimp 59.07 arc [...]

Assistant: Generation 1 merges scoring well (best ~59.36 BLiMP / 33.4 ARC / 4.67 PPL). Still waiting for final verdict.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bi08vsm7e</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "STM exp1 progress and failures"</summary>
<event>gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.661 blimp 58.96 arc 30.80
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.661 blimp 59.12 arc 31.00
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.662 blimp 59.24 arc 30.80
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80@t0.80: wiki_ppl 4.666 blimp 59.36 arc 30.40
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.664 blimp 59.28 arc 31.60
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.663 blimp 59.21 arc 31.20
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.662 blimp 59.13 arc 31.00
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.662 blimp 59.19 arc 30.20
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.80: wiki_ppl 4.662 blimp 59.06 arc 30.60
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.729 blimp 59.36 arc 32.40
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.816 blimp 58.69 arc [...]

Assistant: Still gen-1 sweeps. Waiting for the tournament to converge.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bi08vsm7e</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "STM exp1 progress and failures"</summary>
<event>gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.665 blimp 59.36 arc 31.20
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.662 blimp 59.27 arc 30.40
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.661 blimp 59.18 arc 31.00
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.80: wiki_ppl 4.662 blimp 59.15 arc 30.20
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.740 blimp 58.42 arc 30.80
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.828 blimp 58.37 arc 32.20
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.935 blimp 57.88 arc 32.40
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.65: wiki_ppl 5.055 blimp 57.72 arc 32.60
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.80: wiki_ppl 5.182 blimp 57.21 arc 31.60
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.728 blimp 59.27 arc 31.80
gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.818 blimp 58.52 arc [...]

Assistant: Gen 2 underway. Waiting for final report.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bi08vsm7e</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "STM exp1 progress and failures"</summary>
<event>gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.712 blimp 59.19 arc 33.20
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.715 blimp 59.16 arc 33.20
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.718 blimp 59.00 arc 32.80
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.722 blimp 59.00 arc 33.00
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.80: wiki_ppl 4.724 blimp 59.10 arc 32.40
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.697 blimp 59.03 arc [...]

Assistant: Gen 2 still sweeping. Waiting.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bi08vsm7e</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "STM exp1 progress and failures"</summary>
<event>gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.80: wiki_ppl 5.206 blimp 57.19 arc 32.60
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.20+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.728 blimp 59.07 arc 32.80
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.20+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.728 blimp 59.24 arc 32.60
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.20+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.728 blimp 59.12 arc 33.20
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.20+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.728 blimp 59.27 arc 33.00
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.20+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.80: wiki_ppl 4.728 blimp 59.12 arc [...]

Assistant: Still gen 2. Waiting for convergence.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bi08vsm7e</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "STM exp1 progress and failures"</summary>
<event>gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.20+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.50: wiki_ppl 5.005 blimp 57.84 arc 32.40
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.20+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.65: wiki_ppl 5.107 blimp 57.55 arc 32.40
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.20+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.80: wiki_ppl 5.212 blimp 57.27 arc 32.80
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.708 blimp 59.22 arc 33.00
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.696 blimp 59.07 arc 31.80
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.687 blimp 59.31 arc 31.20
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.678 blimp 59.34 arc [...]

Assistant: Tournament still running gen 2. Waiting.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bi08vsm7e</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "STM exp1 progress and failures"</summary>
<event>gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80@t0.20@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.662 blimp 59.22 arc 31.20
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80@t0.20@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.662 blimp 59.21 arc 31.60
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80@t0.20@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.661 blimp 59.24 arc 31.20
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80@t0.20@t0.80: wiki_ppl 4.662 blimp 59.13 arc 30.60
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.730 blimp 59.16 arc 32.40
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.818 blimp 58.60 arc 32.00
gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65+gen0_step_00008130+step_00006000@t0.80@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.928 blimp 58.19 arc [...]

Assistant: Still gen 2. Waiting for final results.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bi08vsm7e</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "STM exp1 progress and failures"</summary>
<event>gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.80@t0.20@t0.66: wiki_ppl 4.674 blimp 59.30 arc 31.00
gen2_centroid_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.35@t0.20+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.721 blimp 59.15 arc 32.40
gen3_gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65@t0.50+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65@t0.20: wiki_ppl 4.677 blimp 59.34 arc 31.80
gen3_gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65@t0.50+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.673 blimp 59.16 arc [...]

Assistant: Gen 3 now. Waiting for champion.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bi08vsm7e</task-id>
<summary>Monitor event: "STM exp1 progress and failures"</summary>
<event>gen3_gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65@t0.50+gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.20@t0.35: wiki_ppl 4.691 blimp 59.40 arc 32.20
gen3_gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65@t0.50+gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.20@t0.50: wiki_ppl 4.695 blimp 59.24 arc 31.20
gen3_gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.50@t0.65@t0.50+gen2_gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.35+gen1_gen0_step_00008230+step_00006000@t0.20+gen0_step_00008230+step_00008130@t0.20@t0.20@t0.20@t0.65: wiki_ppl 4.698 blimp 59.18 arc [...]

Assistant: Gen 3 sweeping. Waiting.


Human: stop waking up this much

Assistant: Monitor killed. The background `stm.py` job itself will send one notification when it exits — that's the only wakeup left. I'll process results then.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b7pkdavdf</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01Xm4KK1tfRMWxZhxRhq3A4r</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/e45c1355-dff7-4e8e-a94d-fb378adb9a74/tasks/b7pkdavdf.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "Run STM experiment 1 (STM on latest checkpoint + SLERP)" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Experiment 2 running in background. Will compile full comparison, scores.md, and journal when it finishes.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bfa97quu7</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01GDfhev7z8sUToGJgpR1KRC</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/e45c1355-dff7-4e8e-a94d-fb378adb9a74/tasks/bfa97quu7.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "Run STM experiment 2 (STM on SLERP champion + SLERP)" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Both experiments done. Log scores.md rows and journal, then commit.


Human: WHat if you do multiple STM rounds instead of one? Please run more tests and find how much and to what extent it helps. Use the paper for refrence.

Assistant: Paper's recursive STM: after a full pass, reset the pool to everything, tighten the mastery bar, run again — gains big on round 2, diminishing by round 3 (9.2% → 29.6% → 30.8% unseen-hard accuracy; compute savings 1.8% → 4.0% → 21.2%). I'll add multi-round support to `stm.py` (pool reset per round, floor quantile tightened 0.25 → 0.20 → 0.15, optimizer carried across rounds, per-epoch checkpoints per round) and run 3 rounds from `step_00007630`, then SLERP. Per-round raw checkpoint scores will quantify how much each round adds.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b57c4fsf1</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01791FHTTaR5qeXgiGn9DaZV</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/e45c1355-dff7-4e8e-a94d-fb378adb9a74/tasks/b57c4fsf1.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "Run 3-round recursive STM + SLERP" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: **Recursive STM works, and it compounds. 3 rounds → best model this project has produced: overall 60.41, efficiency 10.04 (rank 6/36).**

| Stage | Wiki PPL | BLiMP | ARC-E | Overall | Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Start (step_00007630, raw) | 5.139 | 57.55 | 31.00 | 57.70 | 9.58 (12/36) |
| After round 1 (raw) | 4.663 | 58.78 | 31.60 | 58.91 | 9.79 |
| After round 2 (raw) | 4.597 | 59.36 | 32.20 | 59.39 | 9.87 |
| After round 3 (raw) | 4.649 | 60.67 | 32.80 | 59.96 | 9.96 (8/36) |
| **+ SLERP champion** | **4.609** | **60.28** | **34.40** | **60.41 (16/36)** | **10.04 (6/36)** |

How much each round helps:
- Round 1: +1.21 overall. Round 2: +0.48. Round 3: +0.57. Diminishing but not dead — matches paper's gen-1→2→3 pattern (3.2x jump then 1.2x).
- Paper's Re-Circle event reproduced: round 2 culled most samples (112,621 survivors vs 116,069 in round 1) — model returns to reset pool, confidently tosses borderline samples.
- BLiMP is the big recursive winner: 57.55 → 60.67 raw, best BLiMP this project has seen.
- Final champion (a merge of round-3 checkpoints only — tournament ignored earlier rounds) beats baseline 58.31, single-round STM 59.62, and previous all-time best 60.40. Efficiency rank jumped 10 → 6.

Reference vs paper: pool reset per round, mastery floor tightened per round (0.25/0.20/0.15 quantile), optimizer carried through — exactly the "run it, reset, tighten the bar, run it again" recipe, and savings/gains compound as it predicts.

Run dir `runs/20260610_210039`. All logged in scores.md + journal, 151 tests pass, lint/pyaot [...]


Human: Sick, now apply the combination that gives the best results to the default training pipeline.

Assistant: Best combination: **3-round recursive STM after training, before benchmark/SLERP**. Wiring it into `train.py`. Per AGENTS.md training-change rules this needs a full 2B verification run (`python3 train.py 2 4`) plus a scores.md row — I'll run that after the change.

First generalize the checkpoint-driven STM runner into the module (avoids a circular import, since `stm.py` imports from `train.py`):


Human: I have commited + pushed. Now, look at the research.md file, choose a few **papers** (not ideas) and make some tests, see if they are better than the current baseline. (you need to re-train on 2B tokens at 10%). give me a table showing what was good and what scors it made better. ALso experemt by putting it before and after the first slerp thing like you did with STM

Assistant: Baseline R0 running. Check `byte_tokenize` then build pieces — tests first:


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bmpqoq5ga</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01E5bZ7Z5HnGDxT8cQt1SLNo</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/e24a84d9-b09d-4531-97ce-3c078924b269/tasks/bmpqoq5ga.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "R0: baseline 2B at 10% quality, full pipeline" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Baseline (2B @ 10% with the integrated 3-round STM pipeline) finished: champion **overall 59.59**, efficiency 9.90 (16/36, 10/36), wiki PPL 4.861, BLiMP 58.81, ARC 34.40 — run `runs/20260610_213220`. The queue is starting deepthin next (log not created yet at check time, expected within seconds). Five variant pipelines remain; I'll report the full comparison table when the queue notifies completion.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bwzts9wgo</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01Ac6u27noTdh7VSes9QpHJY</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/e24a84d9-b09d-4531-97ce-3c078924b269/tasks/bwzts9wgo.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "Queue all 5 paper experiments after baseline" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: All experiments done — extract results:


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bbq5po02i</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01DzzJbENhKBPKUkuGFmwaX2</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/e24a84d9-b09d-4531-97ce-3c078924b269/tasks/bbq5po02i.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "Retry OEC 2B run after CUDA fault" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: OEC retry finished but champion is an *early* checkpoint (step 8000) — check whether late training degraded:


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b46gfxedz</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01JmPJUCYYguvN46tEPxDy8x</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/e24a84d9-b09d-4531-97ce-3c078924b269/tasks/b46gfxedz.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "Full suite re-run" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: All 159 tests pass (the two earlier failures were GPU contention, confirmed clean now). Everything committed. Experiment cycle closed — results table stands as reported: procedural warm-up is the keeper (+0.71 overall, efficiency rank 7/36); deepthin, OEC, and both after-SLERP placements rejected.


Human: Add whichever won to the main training pipeline please

Assistant: Wiring procedural warm-up into the default pipeline. Check the e2e test first so I don't break its contract:


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>boecdau6w</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01QsezG7wqLdN9L1Xic6SURc</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/e24a84d9-b09d-4531-97ce-3c078924b269/tasks/boecdau6w.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "Add Path import, run tests" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Procedural warm-up is now in the default pipeline (`train.py`): 0.25% of the token budget as Dyck-sequence warm-up before the main fineweb stage, skipped automatically for sub-block tiny budgets. Pipeline order is now warmup → train → 3-round STM → benchmark → SLERP. Mandatory 2B verification run (`train.py 2 4`) is going; scores.md row + journal when it lands.


Human: you can kill the training

Assistant: Killed and cleaned up. The run got far enough to prove the new warm-up stage works live (`warmup done: 153 steps, 5,013,504 tokens` — exactly the 0.25% front-load) before dying early in main training. Partial run dir removed, journal entry committed noting the verification run is still owed per the training-change rule; the exp.py proc result (60.30 vs 59.59 baseline) stands as the evidence for the feature.


Human: thoughts on my hyper-parameters?

Assistant: Let me look at your training setup first.


Human: ok that's okay. but what about for the goal we have here of teaching frontier agentic capability. are we going about it right? maybe make your own script you think would be better

Assistant: Good question — let me check the chat template first, because the answer hinges on a subtle detail about how reasoning traces get rendered in multi-turn agentic data.


Human: but doesn't that require a teacher model that I have weights for? All i have access to is the API

Assistant: Right — classic on-policy distillation (GKD, logit matching) needs the teacher's per-token distributions, so it's off the table with API-only access. And even if Gemini exposed logprobs, cross-tokenizer logit distillation between Gemini and Qwen vocabularies is its own research problem. So drop that framing. But the part that matters — *training on the student's own trajectory distribution* — doesn't require weights, just teacher text. The API-compatible versions of stage 2:

**1. Rejection-sampling fine-tuning (most practical).** Run your trained 4B student on agentic tasks, sample several rollouts per task, use the Gemini API as a judge to score them (or better, use verifiable signals: did the tool calls execute, did tests pass, did it reach the goal). SFT on the winners with the exact pipeline you already have — the new script consumes this data unchanged. This is on-policy in the way that counts: the model learns from contexts *it* produced.

**2. Teacher relabeling of student states (DAgger-style).** This is the one that most directly attacks compounding errors. Run the student through a trajectory; at each step (or at failure points), send the student's actual context to the Gemini API and have it produce the next assistant turn. Train on (student context → teacher action). Your per-turn expansion format is exactly the right container for this — each relabeled step is one training example. The student learns to recover from its *own* weird states rather than only seeing the teacher's clean ones.

**3. Preference training (DPO/similar).** Pair [...]


Human: create the most realistic and accurate 3D model of the taj majal (with surrounding scenery). build a camera system to allow free view inspection of the model.

Put it all together in the end with a 20 second showcase in a very impressive way. You will be the director of that 20 second showcase, make the most of it, make it cinematic, and most of all make no mistakes.

Assistant: I'll build this as a self-contained Three.js app: a procedurally modeled Taj Mahal (plinth, pishtaq facades, onion dome, chhatris, minarets, mosque & jawab, great gate, charbagh gardens with reflecting pool), a dual-mode camera system (orbit + fly), and a scripted 20-second cinematic showcase. Let me check the workspace first.


Human: Honestly not necessary, this turned out really well. thank you

Assistant: Glad you like it! Quick recap of what's in [index.html](index.html):

- **The model**: marble plinth, chamfered mausoleum body with four pishtaq portals and two-story niches, ribbed onion dome with lotus petals and gold finial, four chhatris, four 3-balcony minarets, the red sandstone mosque and jawab, the Great Gate, charbagh gardens with cypress avenues, real-time reflecting pool, the Yamuna behind, and a flock of birds circling the dome.
- **Camera system**: orbit (drag/scroll/pan) plus a fly mode on F with WASD/QE and Shift-boost.
- **The 20-second showcase**: Space or the button — fade in from black, low skim over the reflecting pool with the title card, crane up around the west minaret, crest behind the dome over the river, wide eastern reveal, then a lens-tightening settle into the classic three-quarter view with the end card. Esc skips.

To view it, just open the preview panel or serve the folder (`python -m http.server 8741`) and visit `localhost:8741`. One note: I left a small `window.__taj` debug hook at the bottom of the file from verification — harmless, but feel free to ask me to strip it if you want the file clean.


Human: create a new branch feat/teich-studio and move us over there then build out teich studio end to end.

users should be able to run `teich studio` after installing the package and it should launch a browser UI (similar color pallete to the screenshot but closer to the teichai orange and a slightly less warm gray)

The browser UI should be an efficient, well-designed place for them to configure their dataset generations easily, giving them a nice interface so they dont need to use an annoying and hard to navigate/understand config.yaml. They can optionally upload a prompts.jsonl or create the prompts from within the UI.

The coolest part though would be interactive mode, where it spawns a the docker container and lets the user just start a session with any of the runners and actually steer that conversation however they'd like. going session by session they can interactively create their dataset as if they were just using any of the runners themselves (the same experience as just launching one of the runners in the terminal and interacting with it)

Prioritize UX. We don't want to overwhelm anyone so organize everything in a smart way that wont scare off first-time users. Good luck!

Assistant: I'll start by exploring the repo to understand the existing structure, then build out Teich Studio.


Human: Sorry to interrupt you but I went ahead and just did my own testing. The interactive chat looks cool, but I was hoping it would give the native claude code, hermes, codex, pi terminal view. as if I had just gone into the docker container, opened my workspace and ran "hermes" or "pi", etc. Then i get the full native experience. Obviously make sure you launch it with the proper api backend and all that configured properly. But that sort of native approach is a lot better UI/UX wise than the current sloppy and ugly looking chat version.

Also why didn't you use @assets/teich.svg    for the logo? fix it.

Other than that the UI/UX is okay at best. It feels not modern enough, just a bit too plain and simple. Not to mention there is a bit of jank on smaller view ports (with the sidebar specifically). Overall the backend worked great but the frontend is underwhelming and even a little buggy. That'll require a full head to toe makeover. Modern, sleek, and intuitive.

Assistant: Good feedback — let me rework it. Plan:

1. **Native terminal interactive mode**: spawn the container and run the actual CLI (`pi`, `codex`, `claude`, `hermes`) with a PTY inside the container, streamed to the browser over WebSocket into xterm.js — the real TUI experience. Trace export on save stays (the CLIs write their session files into the same mounted dirs).
2. **Real logo** from `assets/teich.svg`.
3. **Full UI restyle** + responsive sidebar fix.

First, the Hermes/Claude native launch details I haven't read yet:


Human: Train the mdoel for 60s, look at the tokens per second. Then look at agents.md and diagnose it. Fix it so its in the tens of millions tps constantly. Do not kill any running processes.

Assistant: Read AGENTS.md. Now run training 60s, watch tps.


Human: it should dyanmically work for any GPU

Assistant: Ollama holds 7GB — leave alone; autotune handles memory dynamically. Check journal + autotune.


Human: My PC keeps crashing! Can you diagnose and patch the bug?

Assistant: PC crash diagnosis need data. Check logs first.


Human: I'm in need of a 3D video game that I can play online with my friends. Something like an online skate park where we can go and do tricks and stuff

Assistant: I'll build you a 3D multiplayer skate park game — Three.js for the graphics, a Node.js WebSocket server so you and your friends can join the same park. Let me check the workspace first.


Human: Edit: also read agents.md before continuing

Assistant: Writing failing tests for new behavior in a sandbox test file first.


Human: Make me a photorealistic survival game. We are in the woods surrounded by trees, hills, grass, flowers, nature. The lighting should look really real as well. We can walk around, the wind is blowing, there's ambient sounds and everything, as close to photo-realism as possible

Assistant: I'll build this as a browser-based game with Three.js — first-person controls, procedural forest terrain, wind-animated grass, realistic lighting, and ambient audio. Let me check what's in the project folder first.


Human: any way to optimize it so it isnt so laggy/choppy? I want a lot more fps and i dont think it's optimized well for that

Assistant: The choppiness has three big causes: every frame draws ~2.7M grass vertices with culling disabled, ~10k double-sided leaf cards get re-rendered *twice* (once into a 4096px shadow map, once on screen), and the render resolution follows your display's full pixel ratio. I'll fix all of it:

1. **Chunk the grass** into grid cells with bounding spheres so off-screen chunks get frustum-culled, and simplify blades (9 tris/tuft instead of 15)
2. **Sector the trees** into 24 instanced groups so the forest behind you isn't drawn; distant trees get fewer leaf cards
3. **Take leaf cards out of the shadow pass** (blob shadows still give canopy shade), shrink the shadow map to 2048, and update shadows every other frame
4. **Adaptive resolution** — cap pixel ratio at 1.5 and scale render resolution automatically to hold 60fps


Human: Continue, only edit pyaot.py

Assistant: Repo state: package dir deleted, all code now in single `pyaot.py`. Run tests first, then fix.


Human: added back pyaot/

Assistant: Now implement fixes. Check codegen tests' expectations first so I don't break asserted C output.


Human: Read agents.md. then do this. lane  …/MythosMini   main   18:26  python3 ralph.py
opencode is up to date
What goal do you want done? make test.py with a simple script. (dont care what it is)
planning: asking opencode/deepseek-v4-flash-free to break the goal into mini tasks
rate limit detected — ending this opencode session
opencode rate limited for 1.5 h — resuming it around 20:00
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/user1/MythosMini/ralph.py", line 552, in <module>
    main()
  File "/home/user1/MythosMini/ralph.py", line 547, in main
    plan_tasks(goal)
  File "/home/user1/MythosMini/ralph.py", line 413, in plan_tasks
    rate_limit_handoff(goal, retry_after)
  File "/home/user1/MythosMini/ralph.py", line 334, in rate_limit_handoff
    if remaining > 0 and count_incomplete_tasks(TASKS_FILE.read_text()) > 0:
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/pathlib.py", line 1029, in read_text
    with self.open(mode='r', encoding=encoding, errors=errors) as f:
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/pathlib.py", line 1015, in open
    return io.open(self, mode, buffering, encoding, errors, newline)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/home/user1/MythosMini/ralph/tasks.md'

Assistant: Add proving tests first:


Human: have it delete the un-finished work, not complete it. well, actually. ask the user if they want previous work done. they should say no if they dont know what isnt finished

Assistant: Done, committed `3d7be2c`.

New startup behavior when leftover run found:

```
found an unfinished run — goal: make test.py with a simple script. (3 open tasks)
Resume that previous work? Say no if you don't know what it is. [y/N]
```

- Only explicit `y`/`yes` resumes. Empty Enter, `n`, anything else = no — safe default.
- Decline deletes `ralph/tasks.md`, `ralph/progress.md`, `ralph/state.json`, then asks for fresh goal and plans. `ralph/logs/` kept as history.

Helpers: `wants_resume()` (pure answer parse) + `discard_unfinished_work()`. Tests written first per AGENTS.md (truth table + delete + missing-file tolerance), `make lint` clean, `make test` 29 passed, `docs/functions.md` and journal updated.

One caveat, journaled: discard only delete ralph bookkeeping — partial source changes a previous worker made stay in working tree. Git-reset safety net still backlog item.


Human: Build out a prototype for this potential system for stock AI analysis, a self evolving algorithim generating system where the model can make an algorithm, backtest on some stock data, then use the results to try and improve the algorithm. It should be able to learn from its failures

Assistant: I'll build this prototype. Let me check the project directory first.


Human: using the discord bot token in .env, look at the Glint Research server and properly configure the Muted role

Assistant: Cloudflare block urllib user-agent (error 1010). Fix: add User-Agent header.


Human: Make a hyper detailed agents.md file that tells whoever is reading it (an AI agent) the following. 1. Never use placeholders/examples 2. Never use comments, but describe each function throughly in docs/functions.md for quick loopkups. 3. Keep a hyper detailed journal in journal.md, TL;DR: log what you did, a long description, what worked/failed, what was kept, ect... this should be updated very frequently. 4. Run E2E tests on anything and eveyrhting you make. 5. Only edit what you need to do not remove or break LR.py when you need to edit batch.py (example files). only edit what you need to and nothing else. 6. Read journal.md complerly ensuring that you dont repeat the past.

Assistant: Write AGENTS.md now.


Human: Add another, a the end of its response it must read the function docs and remove any that arent used. this should be quick unless the user asks it to be through

Assistant: Rule 7 added: end-of-response prune of `docs/functions.md`. Quick mode default (grep spot-check, seconds), thorough mode only on explicit user ask (verify every entry + callers). Docs-only deletion — source code untouchable under this rule. Pruning logged in journal. Step 9 added to session checklist.


Human: what could be added for a ultra clean codebase and for it to just work?

Assistant: Candidate rules for clean + "just works":

**Code quality**
1. **Lint/format gate** — run formatter (black/ruff) + linter before done. Zero warnings. Single enforced style = no drift.
2. **Type hints everywhere** — full annotations, `mypy --strict` (or pyright) must pass. Catches whole bug class before runtime.
3. **No dead code** — unused functions, imports, variables, files deleted on sight (within task scope). `ruff --select F401,F841` or vulture.
4. **Complexity cap** — function over ~40 lines or nesting >3 deep must split. Keeps everything readable without comments (fits Rule 2).
5. **Naming convention spec** — snake_case funcs, SCREAMING constants, no abbreviations, names must state intent. Self-documenting code is what makes Rule 2 viable.

**"Just works" reliability**
6. **One-command setup** — `make setup` or `setup.sh` installs everything from clean machine. If new dep added, setup script updated same session.
7. **One-command run + one-command test** — `make run`, `make test`. Agent must verify both still work after each task (catches "works on my edit" breakage).
8. **Pinned dependencies** — exact versions in requirements.txt/lock file. No `>=`. Reproducible = no surprise breakage.
9. **Fail loud** — no bare `except:`, no swallowed errors, no silent fallbacks. Validate inputs at boundaries, crash with clear message otherwise.
10. **No hardcoded paths/secrets** — config in one place (single config file or env), all paths relative to repo root.

**Process**
11. **Atomic commits** — commit after each passing work unit, message says why. [...]


Human: Add the following in agents.md (same length as everything else): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (use same as everything else in the codebase, default to snake_case), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (super frequent commits, short commit messages, no formatting), 12.

Assistant: Update session checklist to fold in new rules.


Human: Add another that tells it to test everything before adding it into the codebase, the codebase is like a super fancy and expensive PC, you want to test things on a trash one before possibly bricking the expensive one. All tests go in tests/ and are to be commited.

Assistant: Done. New **Rule 19: Sandbox First** — expensive-PC analogy intact: never plug untested part into codebase, prove it in isolated test first. Workflow: write test in `tests/` → pass in isolation → integrate → full E2E. Tests permanent + committed, never scratch files. Applies even to "obviously correct" one-liners. Failed attempts logged in journal so never blindly retried.

Old checklist now **Rule 20** with new item 4 (proven-in-`tests/`-before-integration), session order-of-operations renumbered with sandbox as step 4 before any code lands.


Human: Now, look at the most recent AI prompting guides (look at a minimum of 5) then summarize them. Then look at your agent.md. What should be improved so the agent actually listens and doesnt veer of track every five messages?

Assistant: Load web tools, then research.


Human: do it all, but dont heavily shrink the file

Assistant: Check repo contents first.


Human: commit frequently, update the rules

Assistant: Now commit in small units per rules.


Human: Now, research what a ralph loop is. Then add one (opencode) it should use minimax m3 on opencode correcytly, it should be like this. python3 ralph.py then it asks for a goal you want done. example: verify tests work. Then it would take that, call opencode with the model, and ask it to break it into lots of mini tasks with descriptions. Then, it gets the result, save it to a folder (ralph/) then start the ralph loop until its done. It should regognise if its being rate limited and wait until it can resume. (opencode handels rate limits perfectly fine by itself, it just waits until it can go again, normal wait time is like 20 hours)

Assistant: Research first: ralph loop technique + correct opencode CLI/model usage.


Human: oops my bad. use deepseek v4 flash on max reasoning

Assistant: Five long lines. Shortening messages.


Human: Well, my opencode session limit has hit. See if it detects it properly. if not, fix it.

Assistant: Run real opencode call to capture actual limit error.


Human: it caught it

Assistant: Good. Finishing per rules: lint/test, update docs, journal, commit.


Human: if opencode dies, install freebuff, see if they have ways to use it via CLI and use Minimax M3 on standard. (also have it auto install/update opencode on launch tho)

Assistant: Research freebuff first.


Human: if opencode hits a rate limit, also use freebuff. Set a timer for the rate limit, then switch to opencode when its up. (opencode is much faster)

Assistant: Handoff sequence verified: freebuff session → sleep remaining timer → back to opencode. Update docs + journal, commit:


Human: okay.... what. all I see are placeholders, and examples. Use the real data. Edit the agent.py so agents listen, becaue you clearly didnt.

Assistant: Check what actually got produced — look at ralph/ and recent state:


Human: if opencode rate limit -> set timer -> use freebuff with m3 in the meantime -> use opencode after running freebuff session

Assistant: Live E2E: give freebuff one real task via the actual code path and see if it completes it:


Human: Make the ralph loop smarter. It should do this. make goals for prompt -> tell agent to execute first one -> verify it did it!!! -> if not, prompt anoter agent to continue where it left off -> ect.... also, ensure that the agent is told to read agents.md and anything else. Re-test freebuff after this (I had another session running)

Assistant: Update tests for the new loop:


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>btf58zd0z</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01RbEnx8qxuKozmtx4tPU2Wq</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/5eeb7e10-99a4-4d7d-a505-3ef47dcab480/tasks/btf58zd0z.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "Peek at freebuff pane after prompt injection" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: Stuck unsubmitted — Enter was swallowed. Manually submit and patch the code:


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>bdr2903a8</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01NrUvHCiXjG6NUXNyspLxeY</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/5eeb7e10-99a4-4d7d-a505-3ef47dcab480/tasks/bdr2903a8.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "Re-run live freebuff probe end to end" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: All done — tree clean, everything committed.

**The smarter loop (`b693033`):** exactly your flow —
1. **Plan** — agent breaks the goal into mini tasks in `ralph/tasks.md`
2. **Execute** — a worker agent gets the *first unchecked task only*, and is explicitly ordered to read **AGENTS.md completely**, `journal.md`, `docs/functions.md`, `ralph/tasks.md`, and `ralph/progress.md` before touching anything
3. **Verify** — a separate fresh agent checks the claim against actual repo state: confirms the work exists, runs `make lint` + `make test`, replies `RALPH_VERIFIED` — or **unchecks the box**, logs findings, and replies `RALPH_INCOMPLETE` + what remains
4. **Continue** — on failure, the next agent's prompt quotes the verifier's findings and says *continue where it left off, don't restart*. A crashed or rate-limited verifier counts as unverified — incomplete work is never accepted.

**Freebuff re-test: passed live, end to end.** Your other session was indeed the earlier blocker — and ralph now handles that itself (auto-presses "Take over" on the single-instance dialog). Two more real bugs found and fixed during the live run: prompt keystrokes eaten during freebuff's connect screen (now waits for the actual "Enter a coding task" ready marker), and Enter swallowed when sent with the text (now sent separately after 2s). Final probe: freebuff running **MiniMax M3** created `ralph/freebuff_probe.txt` containing exactly `ok`, flipped its checkbox to `[x]`, and ralph's poller detected it — `task completed: True`, session killed cleanly, probe artifacts [...]


Human: push to GitHub

Assistant: Pushed. All 24 local commits rebased cleanly onto the remote's new commits (`124fc47`) and landed on `github.com:CompactAIOfficial/MythosMini` — head is now `d73aac4`. No conflicts, working tree clean.


Human: is there anything else that may want to be added to the ralph loop?

Assistant: Worthwhile additions, roughly by value:

**High value**
1. **Re-plan step** — after every N verified tasks (or when a verifier finds the plan itself wrong), an agent reviews `ralph/tasks.md` against repo reality: add discovered tasks, drop obsolete ones. Plans rot fast; this is the biggest gap.
2. **Stuck-task escape** — same task failing verification 3+ times → stop burning iterations: park it (move to a `## blocked` section with the feedback history), move on, surface to you at end. Right now a truly impossible task loops to MAX_ITERATIONS.
3. **Git safety net** — record `git rev-parse HEAD` before each worker; if verification fails *and* the worktree is a mess, `git reset --hard` to the pre-task commit so the continuation agent starts from a clean known state instead of half-broken soup.
4. **Resume state file** — `ralph/state.json` (goal, iteration, feedback, failure counts). Ctrl-C or crash mid-loop currently loses verifier feedback; on restart it would also re-ask the goal even though tasks.md implies it.

**Medium**
5. **Cost/iteration budget per task** — cap e.g. 5 iterations per single task before parking it (related to #2 but catches slow-burn loops where verification alternates pass/fail).
6. **Verify with a different model** — verifier on a second model (e.g. `openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro` or freebuff's m3) so worker and judge don't share blind spots. Classic self-grading failure mode.
7. **End-of-run report** — final summary printed + written to `ralph/report.md`: tasks done/parked, iterations used, time, what the verifier [...]


Human: Add 1,4,8

Assistant: Implementing re-plan (1), resume state (4), freebuff verification parity (8).


Human: Read agents.md, then make extensive tests and have the model use a 1M token context window, and use the deepseek V4 thing for optimied attention. You can apply any other AI/ML training teqniuqe for attention in small models. You will also train in FP4 from now on. Make tests then report with results, pros, and cons. Is it better  than the latest score?

Assistant: Read AGENTS.md. Per contract, must read journal.md, scores.md, docs before changes.


Human: Continue, that isnt responding idk why. Also there is a memory leak. kill whats using it

Assistant: Parent dead (reparented to systemd) — orphans from yesterday 20:04. Killing them; run A (pid 2546596) untouched.


Human: I dont care whatever is running. dont launch a bacground shell. my memory is still 50GB used

Assistant: Killing run A and all its workers now.


Human: nevermind. continue working

Assistant: Continuing: full suite, then commit sparse-attention feature and launch its 2B run.


Human: set timeout to 30s

Assistant: Add proving tests for worker recycling (fail first), then refactor cache.py.


Human: Continue

Assistant: E2E running ~15 min — sparse attention slowed the pipeline. Wait for its 900s timeout, then measure.


Human: <task-notification>
<task-id>b2btb0hd1</task-id>
<tool-use-id>toolu_01NWpjo8yaEQWPnbk4w84UiZ</tool-use-id>
<output-file>/tmp/claude-1000/-home-user1-MythosMini/602033e7-dc55-4b7f-909f-1c67135d8f4b/tasks/b2btb0hd1.output</output-file>
<status>completed</status>
<summary>Background command "Run pipeline e2e with 30min cap" completed (exit code 0)</summary>
</task-notification>

Assistant: E2E passes (23 min — slow but green). Launch the 2B verification run:


Human: While its running, add support for instruction tuning. (after final SLERP champion), do that then do SLERP on the instruct for Q&A. {%- if messages and messages[0].role == 'system' -%}
{%- set sys_content = messages[0].content -%}
{%- set loop_messages = messages[1:] -%}
{%- else -%}
{%- set sys_content = '' -%}
{%- set loop_messages = messages -%}
{%- endif -%}
<|im_start|>system
{%- if sys_content %}
{{ sys_content }}
{%- endif %}
{%- if tools %}

# Tools

You may call one or more functions to assist with the user query.

You are provided with function signatures within <tools></tools> XML tags:
<tools>
{%- for tool in tools %}
{{ tool.function | tojson }}
{%- endfor %}
</tools>

For each function call, return a json object with function name and arguments within <tool_call></tool_call> XML tags:
<tool_call>
{"name": <function-name>, "arguments": <args-json-object>}
</tool_call>
{%- endif %}<|im_end|>
{% for message in loop_messages -%}
{%- if message.role == 'user' -%}
<|im_start|>user
{{ message.content }}<|im_end|>
{% elif message.role == 'assistant' -%}
<|im_start|>assistant
{%- if message.reasoning %}
<think>
{{ message.reasoning }}
</think>
{%- endif %}
{%- if message.tool_calls %}
{%- for tc in message.tool_calls %}
<tool_call>
{"name": "{{ tc.function.name }}", "arguments": {{ tc.function.arguments }}}
</tool_call>
{%- endfor %}
{%- endif %}
{%- if message.content %}
{{ message.content }}
{%- endif %}<|im_end|>
{% elif message.role == 'tool' -%}
<|im_start|>tool
<tool_response name="{{ message.name }}" id="{{ message.tool_call_id }}">
{{ [...]

Assistant: Data has prebuilt `text` field in ChatML format — byte model can train on it directly. Sandbox-first: tests, then module, then train.py wiring.


Human: its 2:05PM btw

Assistant: Noted. Run is mid-STM-round-3; benchmark + SLERP + SFT phases follow. Wakeup set for 14:42 — I'll check progress then and report when final scores land.