Spaces:
Running on CPU Upgrade
Running on CPU Upgrade
| # 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* | |