Repository navigation
Research: five uncertainty and grounding improvements with executed falsification benchmarks - #21
Conversation
…ls before execution
…with falsifying controls
…ll updated manuscript
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: caedf1bf76
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
|
||
| <!-- RELIABILITY_RESEARCH_END --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- UNCERTAINTY_RESEARCH_START --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the current manuscript is rendered, these new markers become visible text because the marker-removal regex in graph_synthesis/render_current_paper.py:40 only recognizes FOLLOWUP, ADAPTIVE, RISK_CONTROL, and RELIABILITY. The committed HTML already contains <!-- UNCERTAINTY_RESEARCH_START --> and its matching end marker, and the same rendered HTML is used to produce the PDF, so both published formats expose internal section-control syntax. Add UNCERTAINTY to the renderer's marker filter.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
…ll updated manuscript
|
Integration and visual-review update: PR #18 landed while these experiments were executing. The branch now incorporates its full tree and preserves the structural manuscript section; the uncertainty section is regenerated after it. The frozen benchmark baseline, generators, seed, methods and endpoints are unchanged. A YAML condition parsing error in the publication workflow was corrected. Visual PDF inspection also identified exposed UNCERTAINTY insertion markers, so the renderer now hides research metadata generically and two regression tests cover that behavior. The complete combined manuscript, source hashes and build provenance are being regenerated by run https://github.com/CompleteDotTech/paper-package/actions/runs/35328030104. The final reviewed snapshot will undergo all PR checks before merging; this comment is not a claim that those pending checks have passed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 45fb262f00
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| git config user.email '41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com' | ||
| git add graph_synthesis/uncertainty CURRENT_RESULTS.md manuscript/paper-current.md manuscript/paper-current.pdf manuscript/paper-current.html manuscript/paper-current.build.json | ||
| if ! git diff --cached --quiet; then | ||
| git commit -m 'research: record executed uncertainty benchmarks, five figures and full updated manuscript' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On pushes to research/uncertainty-grounding-20260918, this generated commit is immediately pushed back to the same branch, but the job condition only suppresses messages beginning with ci-review-snapshot. The resulting research: record ... push therefore launches this job again; because the committed graph_synthesis/uncertainty/tests.log contains variable elapsed timing from line 53 and the entire directory is staged, subsequent runs can keep producing another commit and create an unbounded workflow/commit loop. Use the excluded prefix for this commit, skip bot-authored pushes, or avoid committing nondeterministic logs.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
…ll updated manuscript
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 4972b80f34
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| build=json.loads(Path('manuscript/paper-current.build.json').read_text(encoding='utf-8')) | ||
| assert sha('manuscript/paper-current.md')==build['source_sha256'] | ||
| assert sha('graph_synthesis/render_current_paper.py')==build['renderer_sha256'] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The renderer changed in this commit, but manuscript/paper-current.build.json still records the previous renderer SHA-256 (805bb27a... rather than the committed file's b1ecb302...). Consequently both Ubuntu and Windows replay jobs unconditionally fail this assertion. Re-render and commit the PDF, HTML, and build manifest alongside the renderer change.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| python -B -m graph_synthesis.uncertainty.report --figures --update-paper | ||
| git diff --exit-code -- graph_synthesis/uncertainty manuscript/paper-current.md CURRENT_RESULTS.md |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At this commit neither CURRENT_RESULTS.md nor manuscript/paper-current.md contains the uncertainty section, so running this exact report command inserts 8 and 137 lines respectively. The following git diff --exit-code therefore fails on every pull-request and main-branch run; commit the generated section before enforcing a clean regeneration.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
Published-artifact review for snapshot |
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
…ll updated manuscript
…overlap disclosure
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
Merged as Final published artifact: run 35330097500, artifact 10540084308, ZIP SHA-256 |
Preserve all current main files, generic marker renderer and four concurrent research studies. Add frontier after uncertainty and before the historical follow-up boundary; retain unchanged legacy regeneration tests. Extend the full report chain additively. Publisher must rerun all frozen benchmarks, integrated regressions and complete-paper rendering before final-head PR checks. No production-policy changes or retuned research endpoints.
1 participant
Scope and evidence boundary
Execute five follow-up hypotheses motivated by the expanded reliability results: dependence-agnostic lineage admission, skeptical optimal-repair backbones, query-loss-directed review, minimum-collateral retraction plans, and grounded recursive materialization.
The exploratory protocol was committed before execution as
383bab6f559c7f14525ddcef2275f3a816c9caa3, againsta62a3257645d8e35cd4e45be53bfa9511d27724b. All five numerical result blocks are explicitly checked unchanged through manuscript integration.Fresh Jev calls: 0. New scientific documents: 0. Production graph-policy changes: 0. These are controlled algorithmic/decision-theoretic results, not improved semantic extraction accuracy, measured human-review gains, independent semantic validation or external-system superiority.
Important novelty audit
These are not five independently novel or never-before-attempted algorithms. Post-execution review of concurrent PR #20 found overlap in possible-world dependence bounds and repair-invariant certainty. Newly merged PR #24 also shares those mechanisms and externally grounded least-fixed-point materialization. At least three core mechanisms therefore substantially overlap concurrent studies. The query-aware review experiments share motivation but use different objectives/evidence; their percentages are not interchangeable.
graph_synthesis/uncertainty/NOVELTY_AUDIT.md, incorporated into the paper, describes the overlapping methods and the limited implementation/oracle differences. The original inventory claim is scoped to the inspected baseline, not every concurrent branch or worldwide literature. Overlapping fixture counts must not be pooled as independent semantic validation or external replication. No hypothesis, fixture generator, threshold or numerical outcome was changed in response to this audit.Executed outcomes
All five frozen engineering targets are met, not five independent discoveries. Wrong marginals defeat lineage bounds; false high priorities can remain necessary; misspecified review priors reverse the chosen policy's benefit; omitted proofs invalidate retraction; false bases still ground false consequences. Caps and infeasible inputs stage explicitly.
Artifacts and integration
The
graph_synthesis/uncertainty/directory contains the frozen protocol, novelty audit, implementations, full per-case results, 36 regression tests, execution notes/logs, summary CSV, five SVG/PNG figure pairs, report and SHA-256 manifest. The complete current manuscript, HTML/PDF/build provenance andCURRENT_RESULTS.mdare updated additively.Genuine merge ancestry preserves concurrent PRs #18, #19 and #24. Publication verifies byte-for-byte preservation of all preceding manuscript sections and exact equality of every H1-H5 result block. The renderer hides research insertion markers, with regression coverage; the complete-manuscript pipeline regenerates every current section, including assumption-aware and uncertainty studies.
Latest integrated publication run: https://github.com/CompleteDotTech/paper-package/actions/runs/35330097500
Final-snapshot cross-platform replay, figure regeneration, provenance verification and all existing PR workflows must pass before merge. This remains an AI-assisted author-review extension, not independent external peer review.