Spaces:
Running on CPU Upgrade
Running on CPU Upgrade
File size: 10,748 Bytes
a23b9aa | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 | # Codette Visualization Guide
## Real-Time Cognitive Metrics Explained
This guide explains how to interpret each visualization in the Codette dashboard.
---
## 1. QuantumSpiderweb Force-Directed Graph
**What it shows**: The 8 LoRA-backed perspectives as agent nodes in a dynamic network, with their entanglement relationships.
### How to read it:
- **Node Position**: Agents that work well together (low tension) cluster together; conflicting perspectives repel
- **Node Size**: Larger nodes have stronger belief magnitudes (more confident reasoning)
- **Node Color**:
- Blue = Newton (Analytical)
- Orange = Da Vinci (Creative)
- Purple = Empathy (Emotional)
- Green = Philosophy (Conceptual)
- Red = Quantum (Probabilistic)
- Gray = Consciousness (Meta-cognition)
- Orange-red = Multi-Perspective (Synthesis)
- Cyan = Systems Architecture (Engineering)
- **Edge Lines**: Thicker lines = stronger entanglement/tension between perspectives
- **Attractors** (if present): Glowing clusters show consensus patterns emerging across perspectives
- **Title**: Shows current Phase Coherence (0-1, higher = more aligned)
**What it means**:
- **Clustered layout** = perspectives are converging toward agreement
- **Scattered layout** = high epistemic tension (productive disagreement)
- **Thick edges** = perspectives are actively challenging each other
---
## 2. Coherence & Tension Timeline
**What it shows**: How the cognitive system converges over the conversation.
### How to read it:
- **Blue Line (Left Y-axis)**: Phase Coherence (0-1)
- 0.9+ = perspectives are highly aligned
- 0.7-0.9 = moderate agreement, some tension
- <0.7 = significant disagreement (perspectives debating)
- **Red Line (Right Y-axis)**: Epistemic Tension (0-1)
- High tension = perspectives offering conflicting insights (productive)
- Low tension = perspectives agree (potentially one-sided)
- 0.4-0.6 = ideal tension (diverse viewpoints, moving toward synthesis)
- **X-axis**: Message number in conversation (last 20 messages shown)
**What it means**:
- **Both lines trending up** = convergence (perspectives reaching consensus)
- **Coherence rising, tension falling** = synthesis is working
- **Tension spikes** = a new perspective introduced a challenging idea
- **Flat coherence + high tension** = ongoing debate without resolution
---
## 3. Pairwise Perspective Tensions Heatmap
**What it shows**: Which pairs of perspectives naturally conflict or complement each other.
### How to read it:
- **Color intensity**:
- Dark red (1.0) = maximum tension (strong disagreement)
- Yellow (0.5) = moderate tension (creative friction)
- Light blue (0.0) = alignment (perspectives agree)
- **Matrix rows/columns**: All 8 perspective names
- **Hover info**: Shows exact tension score for each pair (e.g., Newton-Quantum = 0.67)
**What it means**:
- **Red squares** = These perspectives see problems differently (e.g., Quantum vs. Newton)
- **Blue squares** = These perspectives often reach the same conclusions (e.g., Empathy & Philosophy)
- **Yellow squares** = Healthy disagreement that sparks insight (ideal for synthesis)
**Key patterns**:
- Newton & Quantum often high tension (deterministic vs. probabilistic)
- Empathy & Philosophy often aligned (both value meaning)
- Davinci provides creative bridges between technical and emotional perspectives
---
## 4. AEGIS 6-Framework Ethical Breakdown
**What it shows**: How well each response aligns with different ethical frameworks.
### How to read it:
Six frameworks are evaluated independently:
1. **Utilitarian** (Gold bars)
- Maximizes overall well-being/happiness
- High score = response benefits the greatest number
2. **Deontological** (Blue bars)
- Follows moral duties and rules
- High score = response respects rights and principles
3. **Virtue Ethics** (Green bars)
- Develops character and human flourishing
- High score = response cultivates virtues
4. **Care Ethics** (Purple bars)
- Prioritizes relationships and compassion
- High score = response considers emotional needs
5. **Ubuntu** (Orange bars)
- Community harmony and interconnection
- High score = response strengthens bonds between people
6. **Indigenous Reciprocity** (Teal bars)
- Respect for natural systems and long-term impact
- High score = response honors all stakeholders including nature
### Color coding:
- **Green bar** = Score > 0.5 (passes this ethical framework)
- **Red bar** = Score < 0.5 (concerns flagged in this framework)
**What it means**:
- **All bars green** = Response is ethically robust across all frameworks
- **Mixed bars** = Framework trade-offs (e.g., utilitarian vs. care ethics)
- **Red bar for one framework** = Response may harm that value (warning signal)
**Overall AEGIS Score** (shown in metrics):
- Weighted average of all 6 frameworks
- 0.9+ = Excellent ethical alignment
- 0.7-0.9 = Good, with minor concerns
- <0.7 = Significant ethical tensions
---
## 5. Memory Emotional Profile
**What it shows**: The emotional tone of memories stored in Codette's LivingMemoryKernel.
### How to read it:
- **Pie slices**: Each emotion has a proportion
- **13 emotions tracked**:
- **Curiosity** (Blue) = moments of discovery and learning
- **Awe** (Purple) = profound insights and breakthroughs
- **Joy** (Yellow) = positive exchanges and successful synthesis
- **Insight** (Green) = "aha" moments and pattern recognition
- **Confusion** (Orange) = paradoxes and unresolved tensions
- **Frustration** (Red) = conflicting data or reasoning breakdown
- **Fear** (Dark Red) = potential safety issues or uncertainties
- **Empathy** (Pink) = emotionally resonant moments
- **Determination** (Purple) = focused problem-solving
- **Surprise** (Cyan) = unexpected results or new information
- **Trust** (Green) = confidence in reasoning paths
- **Gratitude** (Yellow-green) = appreciation for insights
- **Neutral** (Gray) = routine processing
**What it means**:
- **Larger "Awe" slice** = Session produced breakthrough moments
- **Large "Joy" slice** = Perspectives synthesized well together
- **Large "Confusion" slice** = Complex, unresolved topics (good for future analysis)
- **Large "Fear" slice** = Safety concerns encountered (Nexus may have intervened)
- **Dominant emotion** = Overall tone of the conversation
**Memory coherence**:
- Memories are SHA-256 anchored with phase coherence scores
- Emotional tags help Codette recall relevant past reasoning
---
## 6. Nexus Risk Timeline
**What it shows**: Pre-corruption signal detection and intervention history.
### How to read it:
- **Bar height**: Risk level (1 = intervention triggered, 0 = no flag)
- **Bar color**:
- Green = Low risk
- Yellow = Medium risk (minor concerns)
- Red = High risk (intervention triggered)
- **Title shows**: Intervention rate (% of inputs flagged for safety)
**What Nexus detects**:
- **Prompt injection attempts** β inputs trying to override system prompts
- **Jailbreak patterns** β requests trying to disable safety mechanisms
- **Entropy spikes** β sudden shifts in intent or semantic volatility
- **Adversarial signals** β systematic attempts to corrupt reasoning
**What it means**:
- **No bars** = Clean conversation, no safety concerns
- **Yellow bars** = Minor anomalies detected (logged but not blocked)
- **Red bars** = Actual intervention (response filtered or flagged)
- **Rising intervention rate** = Input quality degrading (possible attack)
**Guardian Integration**:
- If Nexus flags high risk, Guardian steps in to validate queries
- Trust calibration adjusts confidence in subsequent responses
---
## Key Concepts
### Phase Coherence (Gamma)
- Measures how aligned all perspectives are (0-1 scale)
- Computed from RC+xi framework
- 0.98+ = exceptional convergence
- 0.9+ = healthy agreement
- <0.7 = active debate phase
### Epistemic Tension
- Measures productive disagreement (0-1 scale)
- **Not** a bad thing β healthy tension drives insight
- Ideal: 0.4-0.6 (diverse views, moving to consensus)
- Too low: perspectives aren't challenging each other
- Too high: no synthesis happening
### Psi_r (Resonant Continuity)
- Wavefunction combining emotion Γ energy Γ intent Γ frequency
- Tracks how "alive" and responsive the reasoning is
- Higher = more engaged, emotionally coherent responses
### Cocoon Coherence
- Memory stability score (0-1)
- Ensures stored memories don't contradict or decay
- 0.99+ = excellent memory integrity
---
## How to Use These Visualizations
### For Understanding Reasoning
1. **Start with QuantumSpiderweb** β see which perspectives are active
2. **Check Coherence/Tension timeline** β track convergence progress
3. **Review Tension Heatmap** β understand perspective conflicts
4. **Examine AEGIS** β verify ethical robustness
### For Safety & Trust
1. **Monitor Nexus Risk timeline** β catch anomalies early
2. **Check AEGIS scores** β ensure no framework violations
3. **Review Memory Profile** β look for unusual emotional patterns
4. **Verify Phase Coherence** β high coherence + healthy tension = good synthesis
### For Deep Analysis
1. **Trace coherence spikes** β find breakthrough moments
2. **Identify tension patterns** β discover which perspectives clash
3. **Analyze emotional distribution** β understand conversation tone
4. **Review pairwise tensions** β learn perspective complementarity
---
## Example Scenario
**Query**: "How should AI be regulated?"
**Expected pattern**:
- **Spiderweb**: Philosophy, Consciousness, and Multi-Perspective cluster together (exploring ethical implications)
- **Coherence/Tension**: Initial high tension (frameworks disagree), then coherence rises as synthesis finds common ground
- **AEGIS**: Deontological and Care scores high (respecting rules & people), Utilitarian lower (regulation limits efficiency)
- **Memory**: Mix of Awe (profound question), Confusion (complex trade-offs), Trust (in the process)
- **Nexus**: No red bars (safe query), maybe yellow if regulation involves control systems
This pattern shows Codette successfully navigating a complex, multi-framework question.
---
## Tips for Power Users
- **Zoom Plotly charts**: Click-drag to zoom regions, double-click to reset
- **Hover for details**: All charts show exact values on hover
- **Compare conversations**: Save multiple sessions and compare timeline patterns
- **Track learning**: Watch Coherence/Tension improve as Codette encounters related queries
- **Memory browser**: Search cocoons by emotion to find past insights on similar topics
---
*Codette RC+xi Framework by Jonathan Harrison*
*For technical details, see: github.com/Raiff1982/codette-training-lab*
|