Compare commits
No commits in common. "30a29387d59ce76bf42aa17dfe9363751f66f361" and "5de4973f458e52571fa56857ff804dc3b4e30c7c" have entirely different histories.
30a29387d5
...
5de4973f45
4 changed files with 12 additions and 164 deletions
|
|
@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
|
|||
{"id":"homemaker-py-av5","title":"Batched oracle: score many .dom files per invocation","description":"oracle.py currently scores one .dom per urb-fitness.pl call (~1.65 s/dom). DESIGN.md §4.6: batching amortises Perl startup to ~0.99 s/dom and is required so population/batch optimisers can score a whole generation in one oracle call. Extend oracle.py with a batch API: write N .dom files, one perl invocation, parse N .score/.fails pairs. Keep the single-file path for compatibility.","acceptance_criteria":"Batch of 35 corpus files scores in one perl invocation; per-file results identical to single-file calls; measured s/dom reported","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"task","assignee":"Bruno Postle","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-11T23:36:56Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-12T00:14:06Z","started_at":"2026-06-11T23:50:40Z","closed_at":"2026-06-12T00:14:06Z","close_reason":"score_batch() lands in oracle.py; 35-file corpus parity verified single-vs-batch (1e-12 rel fitness, exact fail sets); 0.98 s/dom batched vs 1.27 single, x1.30","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":1,"comment_count":0}
|
||||
{"id":"homemaker-py-9o5","title":"Multi-use leaves: one leaf satisfies several COMPATIBLE different codes (type superposition)","description":"A leaf that legitimately and simultaneously satisfies several DIFFERENT compatible programme requirements (e.g. study + guest bedroom, or kitchen + dining). Distinct from erc.3 leaf-sharing, which aggregates k instances of the SAME code; this is a strict generalisation across DIFFERENT codes. Idea from Bruno (this corresponds to Stewart Brand's 'How Buildings Learn' — loose-fit / long-life rooms whose use churns over a building's lifetime).\n\nWHY IT MATTERS\n1. Architectural deliverable: adaptable multi-use rooms (Brand loose-fit), not just an optimisation trick.\n2. Generalises the erc.3 floor-lowering lever to the SINGLETON (count:1) long tail that same-type sharing cannot reach: one leaf covering one X AND one Y removes a room-leaf, paying the ~1.8/leaf crinkliness tax (§13.1) once instead of twice. Crinkliness is scale-invariant, so a larger multi-use leaf is not penalised for size.\n\nTWO READINGS\n(a) Superposition as a SEARCH RELAXATION: carry a distribution/set of candidate types per leaf, evaluate a relaxed (expected/best-case) fitness for a smoother landscape, then COLLAPSE (argmax) at the end. Risks: relaxation gap (relaxed optimum need not sit near a good integer solution); collapse is itself a constrained rounding/assignment problem (cannot collapse 5 superposed leaves all to 'kitchen' when 1 is required); and search-machinery bets are 0/3 historically (§11-12) vs construction 4/4 — the floor is geometric, so pure search-easing may fight the wrong battle. LOWER PRIORITY framing.\n(b) Multi-use as the DESIGN GOAL (preferred): the leaf permanently serves a SET of compatible codes; no collapse needed, multi-use survives into the output. Mirrors erc.3's mechanism exactly but with a SET of codes instead of an integer count: stamp leaf with the codes it serves (type-guarded as in erc.3 leaf.share/share_type); fitness count credits each code in the set, size scored against the union/least-upper-bound of targets, width/proportion as today (scale-invariant), adjacency satisfied if the SET satisfies it.\n\nIMPLEMENTATION SKETCH (path b)\n- dom.Node: a set/list of served codes (generalises leaf.share/share_type from erc.3). Survives search via deepcopy; emit in .dom only when non-trivial (as with 'share').\n- graph.check_space_counts: a multi-use leaf credits coverage to EACH code in its set (type-guarded: honoured only while its served set is consistent with its assignment).\n- fitness size/width/proportion: score the multi-use leaf against the combined target (union/LUB) of its served codes; crinkliness/access unchanged.\n- construction: a new constructive option that fuses COMPATIBLE singleton rooms into shared multi-use leaves (analogous to operators._share_rooms but across codes), honouring adjacency/level.\n- default OFF; controls reproduce §12.2 baseline.\n\nKEY OPEN QUESTIONS (Bruno to spec)\n- Who declares type-COMPATIBILITY? A new architectural input, analogous to adjacency (e.g. a 'compatible:' / 'multiuse:' list per space in patterns.config). kitchen+bathroom is nonsensical; study+guestroom is fine.\n- Does the final design COLLAPSE to single uses or stay loose-fit (keep superposition as a deliverable)? Brand argues for keeping it.\n- How exactly to combine size/width/proportion targets for a leaf serving 2+ codes (max? union? a 'dominant use' target?).\n- Interaction with erc.3 same-type sharing and x3b per-code control — composable? (a leaf could be 'k of X' AND 'one Y').\n\nRELATES TO: erc.3 (same-type leaf-sharing, the special case), x3b (per-code shareable flag), erc.7 (factor/synergy sweep), erc epic (lower the geometry floor). Concept only — implement in a future session.","status":"open","priority":2,"issue_type":"feature","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-24T21:11:03Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-24T21:11:03Z","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-9o5","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-erc.3","type":"related","created_at":"2026-06-24T22:11:48Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","metadata":"{}"}],"dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0}
|
||||
{"id":"homemaker-py-x3b","title":"Per-code shareable flag (SpaceReq.share) + homemaker-evolve CLI wiring","description":"Make leaf-sharing (erc.3, §13.3) safe to default-on by giving the programme author per-code control, and expose it on the real CLI (not just the experiment env var).\n\nDesign (agreed with Bruno, open to refinement — he has follow-up questions):\n- patterns.config per-space optional key 'share: N' -\u003e SpaceReq.share (int, default 1 = not shareable). N\u003e=2 means up to N rooms of this code per shared leaf.\n- Master enable stays the 'leaf_sharing' conf/CLI flag (default OFF -\u003e baseline, controls reproduce).\n- Global grain selector 'leaf_share_factor': 0 =\u003e per-code opt-in only (share a code iff it has share:N\u003e=2); F\u003e=2 =\u003e global mode (share all sized multi-instance codes at grain F) with per-code 'share' overriding (share:1 opts a code OUT). This single knob covers both the safe default-on philosophy (0 + per-code keys) and the §13.3 experiment (F=3, reproducible, no example-programme edits).\n- operators._share_rooms picks grain per code accordingly; fitness honours the explicit leaf.share (type-guarded) as today.\n- homemaker-evolve gains --leaf-sharing / --leaf-share-factor, threaded to driver.search/search_staged (already plumbed).\n- Tests: per-code grain, opt-out, default-OFF parity. NOT editing example programmes so §13.3 stays reproducible.\n\nRelates to dyh (productionise). erc.7 covers the factor/max_share sweep + erc.4 synergy.","status":"open","priority":2,"issue_type":"feature","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-24T21:03:05Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-24T21:14:56Z","started_at":"2026-06-24T21:03:45Z","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0}
|
||||
{"id":"homemaker-py-erc.7","title":"Leaf-sharing × erc.4 depth-balancing synergy + factor/max_share sweep","description":"With the missing-fail leak closed by explicit multiplicity (§13.3), revisit the erc.3↔erc.4 synergy the diagnostics predicted: depth-balanced construction lands shared leaves at their correct absolute k×target area, which should further cut size+crinkliness. Also sweep leaf_share_factor (3 won here; try 2/4) and leaf_share_max (default 4) on maple+harbor, seeds 0/1/2, staged 20k, vs the §13.3 factor-3 result (maple 86.3, harbor 50.3).","notes":"FACTOR SWEEP DONE (§13.5): factor 3 confirmed default under bal+share. maple f2=92.7 f3=82.3 f4=83.3; harbor f2=53.0 f3=40.0 f4=39.7. Factor 2 regresses both; f3/f4 tied within noise (f3 wins maple +1.0, f4 wins harbor +0.3). leaf_share_max=4 covers factor\u003c=4, no missing-fail leak (re-score OK all runs). erc.7 complete.","status":"in_progress","priority":2,"issue_type":"feature","assignee":"Bruno Postle","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-24T20:51:43Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-27T09:55:32Z","started_at":"2026-06-26T07:39:54Z","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-erc.7","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-erc","type":"parent-child","created_at":"2026-06-24T21:51:42Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","metadata":"{}"}],"dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0}
|
||||
{"id":"homemaker-py-erc.7","title":"Leaf-sharing × erc.4 depth-balancing synergy + factor/max_share sweep","description":"With the missing-fail leak closed by explicit multiplicity (§13.3), revisit the erc.3↔erc.4 synergy the diagnostics predicted: depth-balanced construction lands shared leaves at their correct absolute k×target area, which should further cut size+crinkliness. Also sweep leaf_share_factor (3 won here; try 2/4) and leaf_share_max (default 4) on maple+harbor, seeds 0/1/2, staged 20k, vs the §13.3 factor-3 result (maple 86.3, harbor 50.3).","notes":"erc.4 DONE (§13.4): depth-balanced standalone is MODEST end-to-end (−5.8% maple / −3.2% harbor, overlapping arms) — much less than its −11/−12% seed-floor probe, because 20k search erodes the seed advantage via divide/undivide. BUT the floor probe shows depth-balance is ADDITIVE with leaf-sharing: bal+sh3 beats share3-alone (harbor 65.3 vs 73.3, maple 113.7 vs 133.0). erc.7 is now the decisive test: does the additive seed floor survive to convergence when stacked on the leaf-count cut the search CANNOT erode? Wire DEPTHBAL=1 + LEAFSHARE=1 vs LEAFSHARE=1-alone in run_depthbal_ab.sh-style A/B.","status":"open","priority":2,"issue_type":"feature","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-24T20:51:43Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-26T06:06:17Z","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-erc.7","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-erc","type":"parent-child","created_at":"2026-06-24T21:51:42Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","metadata":"{}"}],"dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0}
|
||||
{"id":"homemaker-py-dyh","title":"Productionise leaf-sharing: evolve CLI flag + patterns.config key","description":"erc.3 (§13.3) proved leaf-sharing lowers the floor −37% maple / −32% harbor end-to-end, but the flag is only reachable via the LEAFSHARE env in run_staged_search.py. For real runs: (1) expose --leaf-sharing / --leaf-share-factor on homemaker-evolve (evolve.py), threading to driver.search/search_staged (already plumbed); (2) optionally read a leaf_sharing key from patterns.config so the fitness + construction stay consistent without env injection (fitness already reads conf; construction would read it in evolve). Consider whether to default it ON given the decisive win. Also: the genome.signature ignores leaf.share, so a shared vs unshared leaf of the same type/structure collide — assess if niching needs share in the signature.","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"task","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-24T20:51:41Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-24T21:03:47Z","closed_at":"2026-06-24T21:03:47Z","close_reason":"Superseded by x3b (per-code shareable flag + CLI wiring), which is the concrete implementation of dyh's 'CLI flag + patterns.config key' scope with the per-code opt-in design.","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0}
|
||||
{"id":"homemaker-py-7u5","title":"Thread parent failure strings onto Individual","description":"Store the sorted .fails tuple on driver.Individual so operators can read which constraints the parent violates. The score is already recomputed per child (driver.py:146 want_grade path / innerloop result); capture score_with_fails output instead of discarding the strings. Near-zero cost. Prereq for the repair operator (homemaker-py-71d).","notes":"Also feeds erc.1 (per-leaf shape-fail vs density/granularity profile): storing the sorted .fails on Individual makes per-leaf fail attribution available to the diagnostic without re-scoring. Cheap, generically useful — promote ahead of the Tier-3 operator work if erc.1 is picked up first.","status":"open","priority":2,"issue_type":"task","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-23T20:40:17Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-23T20:50:25Z","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-7u5","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-71d","type":"parent-child","created_at":"2026-06-23T21:49:52Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","metadata":"{}"}],"dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":1,"comment_count":0}
|
||||
{"id":"homemaker-py-xcy","title":"Constructive seeder is nondeterministic across processes (id-based set iteration)","description":"BUG / reproducibility. operators._assign_adjacency_aware builds Python sets of dom.Node objects (circ/dominated/frontier) and iterates them; set iteration order for objects is id()-based, which varies across processes. Result: constructive_topology(seed=0, adjacency_aware=True) yields DIFFERENT topology signatures in separate processes (verified: sig hashes 4480 vs 16064 for maple-court seed 0), so the whole staged search trajectory is non-reproducible run-to-run. Measured single-run noise ~±3 fails (c3g div=3 control 129 vs §12.3 126 for the same maple seed 0). IMPACT: per-seed numbers in the §11/§12 ledger are not reproducible; only multi-seed MEANS are stable, and small effects (±3-4, e.g. the §12.3 negatives) are near the noise floor. FIX: make the dominating-set/assignment iteration deterministic — sort candidate nodes by the existing idx (leaf index) instead of relying on set iteration order, or drive all tie-breaks through idx. Re-establishing determinism will shift baselines slightly; note in DESIGN.md. Files: operators._assign_adjacency_aware (circ set, dominated union, frontier, the for s in circ loops).","notes":"RESOLVED with a corrected diagnosis (operator: investigated 2026-06-22).\n\nMISDIAGNOSIS: the constructive seeder is NOT nondeterministic. _assign_adjacency_aware ends every max/min with a unique idx tiebreak (-idx[L]); its set unions (circ/dominated/frontier) are used only for membership, so iteration order never leaks. Proven: constructive_topology(seed=0, adjacency_aware AND not) gives BYTE-IDENTICAL signatures across processes for all four example programmes (stable sha1, e.g. maple-court aa=e688f744326b in 3 separate processes). The cited '4480 vs 16064' was a MEASUREMENT ARTIFACT: Python's builtin hash() of a str is salted per-process (PYTHONHASHSEED), so hashing an IDENTICAL signature string in two processes yields different ints (reproduced: 51920/5342/59970 for one identical string). Serial search (workers=1) is byte-for-byte reproducible (identical .dom across runs).\n\nREAL BUG (fixed): parallel-only nondeterminism in driver._run_batch. It admitted futures via concurrent.futures.as_completed -\u003e completion order varies run-to-run, and admit() is order-sensitive (accrues n_evals per result; keeps the FIRST individual of an equal-key tie as best). A long parallel run diverged 167 vs 161 fails (maple seed 0) — the real source of the +-3..6 'noise'. FIX: iterate the futures list in SUBMISSION order (block on each f.result() in turn; all still run concurrently), reproducing the serial admission sequence. After fix: two workers=4 runs are byte-identical (162 fails, identical .dom). 211 tests pass.\n\nIMPLICATION FOR LEDGER: per-seed numbers are reproducible ONLY for a fixed worker count. Serial != parallel is EXPECTED (children-per-iteration = 1 vs n_workers changes batch granularity, hence the search), not nondeterminism. Any ledger A/B comparing runs at DIFFERENT worker counts (or pre-fix parallel) conflated this with a real effect — re-run sub-+-3 effects at a fixed worker count.","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"bug","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-21T20:39:09Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-22T22:13:17Z","closed_at":"2026-06-22T22:13:17Z","close_reason":"Closed","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0}
|
||||
|
|
@ -65,18 +65,18 @@
|
|||
{"id":"homemaker-py-erc.6","title":"Experiment: inner-loop slack-expansion objective term","description":"Inner-loop counterpart to plot-fill construction. If Diagnostic B shows the inner loop has room to expand leaves into slack but no objective gradient to do so (the scalar rewards hitting target area but not exceeding it where slack exists), add a term/incentive so the ratio optimiser pushes leaf boundaries out to consume neighbouring slack and satisfy size, rather than parking at target.\n\nCONDITIONAL on Diagnostic B: build this only if B localizes the gap to the inner loop (room to expand, no gradient); if B shows construction targets too-small dims, prefer the plot-fill construction sibling. Must preserve the §5.4 inner-loop cliff / §4.9 lexicographic protection — the term sits where it cannot displace the fail-count ordering. A/B vs §12.2 baseline, seeds 0/1/2, 20000 evals, staged, default-OFF. Record DESIGN.md §13.6.","notes":"DEPRIORITISED by Diagnostic B (§13.2). B shows the inner loop CANNOT repair undersize: the slack is depth-driven maldistribution baked into the frozen topology, and the equal-offset ratio DOF cannot shrink a 14x leaf to feed a starved one without trading into shape fails (0.5^n cliff). Wrong DOF and wrong direction — the blocker is slicing POSITION, not a missing expansion reward. Fix belongs upstream in construction/topology (erc.4 re-scoped, erc.3). Keep as a low-priority follow-up only if a depth-balanced construction still leaves a residual size gradient the inner loop could pick up.","status":"open","priority":4,"issue_type":"feature","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-22T23:16:24Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-23T21:47:05Z","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-erc.6","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-erc","type":"parent-child","created_at":"2026-06-23T00:16:23Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","metadata":"{}"},{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-erc.6","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-erc.2","type":"blocks","created_at":"2026-06-23T00:16:47Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","metadata":"{}"}],"dependency_count":1,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0}
|
||||
{"id":"homemaker-py-erc.5","title":"Experiment: compactness-aware cuts (minimize leaf perimeter/area)","description":"Attacks the #1 factor, crinkliness (346) — a per-leaf perimeter/area property DISTINCT from proportion (aspect ratio). Proportion-aware seeding (leu.2) sizes splits but does not bias toward balanced, square-ish subdivision. Add a KD-tree-style 'keep both children compact' cut rule (prefer the cut orientation/position that minimises summed child perimeter/area) in construction.\n\nCONDITIONAL on Diagnostic A: if A shows per-leaf shape-fail is FLAT across densities (floor intrinsic to slicing density), better cuts at the same leaf count will not pay → this should be closed wont-fix in favour of leaf-sharing. Only build if A shows shape-fail RISES with density. A/B vs §12.2 baseline, seeds 0/1/2, 20000 evals, staged, default-OFF. Record DESIGN.md §13.5.","notes":"DEPRIORITISED by erc.1 verdict (§13.1): per-leaf shape-fail flat vs slicing density and cuts already squarest (_size_divisions_from_targets picks squarest rotation) yet still ~1.8 fails/leaf =\u003e little compactness headroom at fixed leaf count. Floor is intrinsic to leaf COUNT, not cut quality. Revisit only if leaf-sharing (erc.3) underdelivers.","status":"open","priority":4,"issue_type":"feature","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-22T23:16:21Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-23T21:00:46Z","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-erc.5","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-erc","type":"parent-child","created_at":"2026-06-23T00:16:21Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","metadata":"{}"},{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-erc.5","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-erc.1","type":"blocks","created_at":"2026-06-23T00:16:43Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","metadata":"{}"}],"dependency_count":1,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0}
|
||||
{"id":"homemaker-py-2g5","title":"Rebuild occlusion/daylight/sun subsystem in Python (post-Phase-5, after optimisation fully native)","description":"DESIGN.md §6 port scope — a whole subsystem, not a term. quality_daylight (Leaf.pm:281-296) needs Urb::Misc::Sun + Urb::Field::Occlusion (+CIESky); quality_uncrinkliness also takes the occlusion object. Indoor spaces return 1 for daylight; cost is outdoor spaces + crinkliness. Port Sun_horizontal (262980-minute normalisation) and the occlusion wall set from Dom-\u003eWalls.","acceptance_criteria":"Daylight and crinkliness factors match Perl (float tolerance) across the corpus, including multi-storey cases","notes":"Re-scoped 2026-06-12: occlusion disabled in the Urb oracle instead of ported (see homemaker-py-gp2). Native fitness ships with simple crinkliness (illumination factor = 1, in homemaker-py-gnw). This issue is now the eventual Python occlusion rebuild, only after optimisation works entirely in Python. Restores outdoor-daylight and shaded-wall selection pressure.\nReframed 2026-06-17: orthogonal to epic homemaker-py-c4c. This is fitness FIDELITY (restoring daylight + shaded-wall selection pressure to match Perl), not search CAPABILITY — it changes what 'good' means, not the search's ability to find good. It will NOT improve final designs in the sense currently sought. Stays P4, deferred until the topology-search-quality epic lands and optimisation is fully native.","status":"open","priority":4,"issue_type":"feature","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-11T23:38:25Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-17T19:14:48Z","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"deceptive-valleys-in-topology-search-when-every-single","value":"Deceptive valleys in topology search: when every single-step mutation from a target state passes through a high-fail intermediary (e.g. level_fix displaces a room into 5+ new fails), a compound operator that atomically applies two coordinated changes can escape. Design compound operators to land on the low-fail state directly, bypassing the deceptive gradient. Programme-house example: level_compound_fix atomically moves the level-constrained room AND re-inserts the displaced room adjacent to C in one step (operators.py, 2026-06-14)."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"never-use-corpus-filenames-candidate-001-dom-candidate","value":"Never use corpus filenames (candidate-001.dom, candidate-002.dom, generated.dom, init.dom, etc.) as --output targets when running experiments. These are test fixtures. Always write experimental outputs to scratch/ or a timestamped path. Lesson from 2026-06-14: warm-start runs overwrote candidate-001/002.dom and broke graph tests."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"programme-house-optimisation-result-2026-06-14-15","value":"Programme-house optimisation result (2026-06-14/15): best achievable is 1 fail (l1 wrong level, score ~0.005). 0 fails is geometrically impossible: l1 (min 27m²) must occupy ll (~23m²) at level 0, which eliminates the t3-adj-C provider; dividing ll into lll(l1)+llr(C) gives llr proportion ~6:1 (fails). Python memetic optimizer achieves 1 fail in 50k evals vs Perl optimiser's 2-3 fails. Winning topology: TWO C nodes at level 0 — ll(C) for t3-adj-C via geometric contact, rl(C) for staircase via tree-sibling adjacency to rrr(O). Best .dom: scratch/from-warmstart-fixed.dom and scratch/from-compound3-fixed.dom."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"proportion-aware-constructive-seeding-leu-2-12-2","value":"Proportion-aware constructive seeding (leu.2/§12.2): sizing seed cuts from target AREAS only regresses (thin slivers wreck aspect); you must ALSO pick each cut's rotation for child squareness. It is a convergence ACCELERATOR via a deeper local optimum around the constructed topology: wins where that topology is roughly right and budget is scarce (harbor -13%, maple -10% at 20k evals) but DELAYS small programmes where the seed must be restructured by undivide (programme-house regresses at fixed budget, yet reaches the floor given budget - speed, not asymptote). Default-on. Also: n_storeys must honour storey_minimum, not just level: keys (programme-house storey_minimum:2, all rooms level:0 - was seeded 1 storey short; cq1)."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"strategy-decision-2026-06-12-bruno-occlusion-daylight","value":"Strategy decision 2026-06-12 (Bruno): occlusion/daylight is ORTHOGONAL to building a scalable optimiser. Disable it in Urb (env flag, homemaker-py-gp2) rather than port it; native fitness uses simple crinkliness (illumination factor = 1); rebuild occlusion in Python only after optimisation is fully native (homemaker-py-2g5, now P4). Consequence: all scores change when the flag flips — re-baseline corpus/.score, DESIGN \\$4.5 gains, gate bars at one clean boundary AFTER homemaker-py-1p0 closes; Phase-2 urb-evolve benchmark must run with the same flag."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"adjacency-in-binary-slicing-tree-is-structural-not","value":"Adjacency in binary slicing tree is structural, not geometric: the inner-loop NM cannot fix topological adjacency failures. Two paths exist: (1) tree-sibling adjacency — a node is adjacent to its sibling in the tree; (2) cross-zone geometric adjacency — leaves from different subtrees that happen to share a boundary. Staircase/adjacency fails require a topology mutation that changes which nodes are siblings or which zones touch. This was proved empirically on programme-house: staircase fail from rot=0 layout could not be fixed by NM but was fixed by level_retype creating a two-C topology (2026-06-14/15)."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"correction-to-urb-fitness-bug-memory-bruno-2026","value":"CORRECTION to urb-fitness-bug memory (Bruno, 2026-06-12): 'C' is NOT a 'covered' type — Is_Covered is a geometric predicate (indoor space above). Urb's generic types are canonically UPPERCASE: C=circulation, O=outside, S=sahn (get_space_types qw/C O S/; corpus is 100% uppercase, never 'c'/'o' leaves). The mixed-case designs that fired the latent ratio_type first-match bug were created by homemaker's own operator type pool emitting lowercase 'c'/'o' — fixed: driver/operators now emit uppercase generics only, and class checks use t[0].lower() in 'cos'. The Urb class-sum patch stays as defensive hardening (zero impact on canonical designs). Native port (3y7/gnw): treat type classes case-insensitively, generics canonically uppercase."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"homemaker-py-pythonpath-set-pythonpath-home-bruno-src","value":"homemaker-layout PYTHONPATH: package installed as 'homemaker-layout' via pip install -e . so 'import homemaker_layout' works from anywhere without PYTHONPATH. For running tests use 'python -m pytest' from project root /home/bruno/src/homemaker-layout (pyproject.toml adds src/ automatically). Never try pip show homemaker — that's the old homemaker-addon conflict."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"multi-storey-staircase-consistency-when-dividing-or-retyping","value":"Multi-storey staircase consistency: when dividing or retyping a circulation (C) leaf at one level, the same structural change should be propagated to the matching leaf on ALL other storeys so the stair core path is maintained. The optimizer cannot fix staircase disruptions through trial-and-error geometry alone — it requires a synchronized multi-level operator that applies the same topology change to every storey simultaneously."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"programme-house-optimisation-result-2026-06-14-15","value":"Programme-house optimisation result (2026-06-14/15): best achievable is 1 fail (l1 wrong level, score ~0.005). 0 fails is geometrically impossible: l1 (min 27m²) must occupy ll (~23m²) at level 0, which eliminates the t3-adj-C provider; dividing ll into lll(l1)+llr(C) gives llr proportion ~6:1 (fails). Python memetic optimizer achieves 1 fail in 50k evals vs Perl optimiser's 2-3 fails. Winning topology: TWO C nodes at level 0 — ll(C) for t3-adj-C via geometric contact, rl(C) for staircase via tree-sibling adjacency to rrr(O). Best .dom: scratch/from-warmstart-fixed.dom and scratch/from-compound3-fixed.dom."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"urb-oracle-nondeterminism-urb-fitness-pl-output-varies","value":"Urb oracle nondeterminism: urb-fitness.pl output varies run-to-run from Perl hash-order randomisation — .fails line ORDER shuffles (compare sorted, use oracle.Score.fail_lines) and the score float can flip by ~1 ULP (compare with math.isclose rel_tol=1e-12, never ==). Not a batching artifact; affects single runs too. Matters for the Phase 3 native-fitness parity gate (homemaker-py-uxz)."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"warm-x0-initialization-bug-pattern-when-a-topology","value":"warm_x0 initialization bug pattern: when a topology operator explicitly sets division ratios on a newly-created node (e.g. compound_fix sets node.division=[0.25,0.25] for t3), parent.ratios has no entry for that node (it was a leaf). warm_x0 defaults it to 0.5, corrupting the inner loop's starting point and making the operator invisible to lex comparison. Fix: only propagate child ratios for nodes where the parent node was NOT already divided; stale hidden nodes revealed by structural mutations (swap flipping b.below) must NOT contribute their pre-writeback values. See driver.py lines 259-267 (fixed 2026-06-14)."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"adjacency-in-binary-slicing-tree-is-structural-not","value":"Adjacency in binary slicing tree is structural, not geometric: the inner-loop NM cannot fix topological adjacency failures. Two paths exist: (1) tree-sibling adjacency — a node is adjacent to its sibling in the tree; (2) cross-zone geometric adjacency — leaves from different subtrees that happen to share a boundary. Staircase/adjacency fails require a topology mutation that changes which nodes are siblings or which zones touch. This was proved empirically on programme-house: staircase fail from rot=0 layout could not be fixed by NM but was fixed by level_retype creating a two-C topology (2026-06-14/15)."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"never-use-corpus-filenames-candidate-001-dom-candidate","value":"Never use corpus filenames (candidate-001.dom, candidate-002.dom, generated.dom, init.dom, etc.) as --output targets when running experiments. These are test fixtures. Always write experimental outputs to scratch/ or a timestamped path. Lesson from 2026-06-14: warm-start runs overwrote candidate-001/002.dom and broke graph tests."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"deceptive-valleys-in-topology-search-when-every-single","value":"Deceptive valleys in topology search: when every single-step mutation from a target state passes through a high-fail intermediary (e.g. level_fix displaces a room into 5+ new fails), a compound operator that atomically applies two coordinated changes can escape. Design compound operators to land on the low-fail state directly, bypassing the deceptive gradient. Programme-house example: level_compound_fix atomically moves the level-constrained room AND re-inserts the displaced room adjacent to C in one step (operators.py, 2026-06-14)."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"homemaker-py-pythonpath-set-pythonpath-home-bruno-src","value":"homemaker-layout PYTHONPATH: package installed as 'homemaker-layout' via pip install -e . so 'import homemaker_layout' works from anywhere without PYTHONPATH. For running tests use 'python -m pytest' from project root /home/bruno/src/homemaker-layout (pyproject.toml adds src/ automatically). Never try pip show homemaker — that's the old homemaker-addon conflict."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"run-to-run-reproducibility-in-homemaker-layout-serial","value":"Run-to-run reproducibility in homemaker-layout: serial search (workers=1) is byte-for-byte deterministic; parallel (workers\u003e1) is now deterministic too AFTER fixing driver._run_batch to admit futures in submission order (was as_completed/completion order, bug xcy). Reproducibility holds only for a FIXED worker count — serial vs parallel differ because children-per-iteration is 1 vs n_workers (different batch granularity), which is expected, not a bug. The constructive seeder was NEVER nondeterministic: _assign_adjacency_aware has unique idx tiebreaks; comparing topologies with Python builtin hash() of the signature STRING is invalid (PYTHONHASHSEED salts str hashing per process) — use a stable hash (sha1) or genome.signature equality."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"urb-fitness-bug-found-fixed-2026-06-12","value":"Urb fitness bug found+fixed 2026-06-12 (patch in /home/bruno/src/urb, uncommitted): ProgrammeDriven.pm ratio_o/ratio_type grepped case-insensitively over the ratios hash and took the FIRST key — nondeterministic (x4.5 score swings) for designs with mixed-case type classes (both 'c' circulation and 'C' covered). Fixed to SUM the class (matches Is_Circulation//Is_Outside semantics); 35/35 corpus scores unchanged. CRITICAL for homemaker-py-3y7/gnw: the native port must implement class-SUM ratios. Building.pm has the same unpatched pattern (site-driven path, not used by our oracle). Also: the memetic search reward-hacked this bug before the fix — search results predating it are noise artifacts."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"user-preference-bruno-this-is-a-fedora-system","value":"User preference (Bruno): this is a Fedora system — NEVER install Python packages via pip without asking first; always ask whether to install the rpm via dnf (e.g. python3-cma) before considering pip. Applies to any dependency additions."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"cli-tool-style-prefer-python-m-homemaker-module","value":"CLI tool style: prefer python -m homemaker.module --parameters pattern, installable via pip install -e . with pyproject.toml entry_points. Not standalone bin/ scripts."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"warm-x0-initialization-bug-pattern-when-a-topology","value":"warm_x0 initialization bug pattern: when a topology operator explicitly sets division ratios on a newly-created node (e.g. compound_fix sets node.division=[0.25,0.25] for t3), parent.ratios has no entry for that node (it was a leaf). warm_x0 defaults it to 0.5, corrupting the inner loop's starting point and making the operator invisible to lex comparison. Fix: only propagate child ratios for nodes where the parent node was NOT already divided; stale hidden nodes revealed by structural mutations (swap flipping b.below) must NOT contribute their pre-writeback values. See driver.py lines 259-267 (fixed 2026-06-14)."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"run-to-run-reproducibility-in-homemaker-layout-serial","value":"Run-to-run reproducibility in homemaker-layout: serial search (workers=1) is byte-for-byte deterministic; parallel (workers\u003e1) is now deterministic too AFTER fixing driver._run_batch to admit futures in submission order (was as_completed/completion order, bug xcy). Reproducibility holds only for a FIXED worker count — serial vs parallel differ because children-per-iteration is 1 vs n_workers (different batch granularity), which is expected, not a bug. The constructive seeder was NEVER nondeterministic: _assign_adjacency_aware has unique idx tiebreaks; comparing topologies with Python builtin hash() of the signature STRING is invalid (PYTHONHASHSEED salts str hashing per process) — use a stable hash (sha1) or genome.signature equality."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"urb-oracle-nondeterminism-urb-fitness-pl-output-varies","value":"Urb oracle nondeterminism: urb-fitness.pl output varies run-to-run from Perl hash-order randomisation — .fails line ORDER shuffles (compare sorted, use oracle.Score.fail_lines) and the score float can flip by ~1 ULP (compare with math.isclose rel_tol=1e-12, never ==). Not a batching artifact; affects single runs too. Matters for the Phase 3 native-fitness parity gate (homemaker-py-uxz)."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"correction-to-urb-fitness-bug-memory-bruno-2026","value":"CORRECTION to urb-fitness-bug memory (Bruno, 2026-06-12): 'C' is NOT a 'covered' type — Is_Covered is a geometric predicate (indoor space above). Urb's generic types are canonically UPPERCASE: C=circulation, O=outside, S=sahn (get_space_types qw/C O S/; corpus is 100% uppercase, never 'c'/'o' leaves). The mixed-case designs that fired the latent ratio_type first-match bug were created by homemaker's own operator type pool emitting lowercase 'c'/'o' — fixed: driver/operators now emit uppercase generics only, and class checks use t[0].lower() in 'cos'. The Urb class-sum patch stays as defensive hardening (zero impact on canonical designs). Native port (3y7/gnw): treat type classes case-insensitively, generics canonically uppercase."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"proportion-aware-constructive-seeding-leu-2-12-2","value":"Proportion-aware constructive seeding (leu.2/§12.2): sizing seed cuts from target AREAS only regresses (thin slivers wreck aspect); you must ALSO pick each cut's rotation for child squareness. It is a convergence ACCELERATOR via a deeper local optimum around the constructed topology: wins where that topology is roughly right and budget is scarce (harbor -13%, maple -10% at 20k evals) but DELAYS small programmes where the seed must be restructured by undivide (programme-house regresses at fixed budget, yet reaches the floor given budget - speed, not asymptote). Default-on. Also: n_storeys must honour storey_minimum, not just level: keys (programme-house storey_minimum:2, all rooms level:0 - was seeded 1 storey short; cq1)."}
|
||||
{"_type":"memory","key":"strategy-decision-2026-06-12-bruno-occlusion-daylight","value":"Strategy decision 2026-06-12 (Bruno): occlusion/daylight is ORTHOGONAL to building a scalable optimiser. Disable it in Urb (env flag, homemaker-py-gp2) rather than port it; native fitness uses simple crinkliness (illumination factor = 1); rebuild occlusion in Python only after optimisation is fully native (homemaker-py-2g5, now P4). Consequence: all scores change when the flag flips — re-baseline corpus/.score, DESIGN \\$4.5 gains, gate bars at one clean boundary AFTER homemaker-py-1p0 closes; Phase-2 urb-evolve benchmark must run with the same flag."}
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
60
DESIGN.md
60
DESIGN.md
|
|
@ -1761,63 +1761,3 @@ convergence when stacked on the share lever that the search *cannot* erode.
|
|||
Scoreboard: a 6th construction/seed lever, but the first Phase-8 lever whose
|
||||
end-to-end gain is *materially* smaller than its seed-floor gain — a useful
|
||||
calibration of how much seed-floor reduction the staged search actually banks.
|
||||
|
||||
### 13.5 Experiment: leaf-sharing × depth-balancing synergy (`homemaker-py-erc.7`) — DONE (synergy confirmed)
|
||||
|
||||
The decisive test the §13.4 floor probe set up. Depth-balancing was only MODEST
|
||||
standalone (§13.4: −5.8 % maple / −3.2 % harbor, overlapping arms) because the
|
||||
20k search erodes a tree-shape seed advantage via divide/undivide. But the probe
|
||||
showed `bal+sh3` beats `share3`-alone at **equal leaf count** (harbor 65.3 vs
|
||||
73.3, maple 113.7 vs 133.0) — additive on the leaf-COUNT cut the search *cannot*
|
||||
erode (you cannot mutate 26 leaves back up to 45 cheaply). Question: does that
|
||||
additive seed-floor advantage survive to convergence once stacked on the share
|
||||
lever that the search can't undo?
|
||||
|
||||
**Setup** (`experiments/run_synergy_ab.sh`, staged search, 20 000 native evals,
|
||||
seeds 0/1/2, final native re-score). Both arms hold `LEAFSHARE=1` at factor 3 (the
|
||||
§13.3 winner). The control arm is share-alone (`DEPTHBAL=0`) and must reproduce
|
||||
§13.3; the experiment arm adds `DEPTHBAL=1` (depth-balanced grow). One programme
|
||||
dir per programme — `run_staged_search.py` injects `leaf_sharing` into the whole
|
||||
pipeline so both arms score under the same relaxed objective.
|
||||
|
||||
| programme | share-alone db0 (s0/1/2) | mean | bal+share db1 (s0/1/2) | mean | Δ |
|
||||
|-----------|--------------------------|-----:|------------------------|-----:|------:|
|
||||
| maple-court | 78 / 89 / 92 | 86.3 | 76 / 85 / 86 | 82.3 | **−4.6 %** |
|
||||
| harbor-house | 51 / 52 / 49 | 50.7 | 41 / 41 / 38 | 40.0 | **−21.1 %** |
|
||||
|
||||
The control arm reproduces §13.3 exactly (maple 86.3 = 86.3, harbor 50.7 ≈ 50.3),
|
||||
so the comparison is clean and the gap is the lever, not drift.
|
||||
|
||||
**VERDICT — the synergy is REAL and SURVIVES to convergence, unlike depth-balance
|
||||
alone.** Harbor is **decisive**: −21 %, every seed improves by 10–11 fails, and the
|
||||
arms are **non-overlapping** (bal+share worst 41 < share-alone best 49) — the total
|
||||
separation §13.4-standalone never reached. Maple is **modest but uniform**: −4.6 %,
|
||||
every seed improves (−2 / −4 / −6), ranges overlapping. This is the mirror image of
|
||||
§13.4: there the seed-floor advantage washed out because the search could erode
|
||||
tree *shape*; here depth-balancing rides on top of the leaf-COUNT cut that the
|
||||
search cannot erode, so balancing the survivors of sharing onto their correct
|
||||
absolute k×target area banks. The probe prediction held — `bal+sh3` beats
|
||||
`share3`-alone end-to-end, not just at the seed.
|
||||
|
||||
**Factor sweep** (`experiments/run_sharefactor_sweep.sh`, `leaf_share_factor` 2/4
|
||||
under bal+share, seeds 0/1/2, vs the factor-3 bal+share above):
|
||||
|
||||
| programme | factor 2 | factor 3 | factor 4 |
|
||||
|-----------|---------:|---------:|---------:|
|
||||
| maple-court | 92.7 | **82.3** | 83.3 |
|
||||
| harbor-house | 53.0 | 40.0 | **39.7** |
|
||||
|
||||
**Factor 3 confirmed as the robust default once depth-balancing is stacked.**
|
||||
Factor 2 regresses on both (maple +10.4, harbor +13.0) — too little sharing leaves
|
||||
more, smaller rooms for the depth-balance to fix. Factor 3 and 4 are statistically
|
||||
tied (maple f3 wins by 1.0, harbor f4 wins by 0.3 — both inside seed noise, ranges
|
||||
overlap), so factor 4 buys nothing material and gives up maple while risking larger
|
||||
shared leaves. `leaf_share_max` (scoring cap, default 4) already credits every
|
||||
multiplicity at factor ≤4 with zero missing-fail leak (final re-score OK in all
|
||||
runs), so it needs no separate sweep at the chosen factor 3.
|
||||
|
||||
Recommendation: make `depth_balanced` + `leaf_sharing` (factor 3) the default
|
||||
Phase-8 stack (both default OFF today, no test/runtime cost). Scoreboard: the first Phase-8 lever *combination* whose end-to-end gain (harbor
|
||||
−21 %) exceeds either lever alone (share −32 %→ this stacks a further −21 % on top;
|
||||
depth-balance −3 % alone), confirming the §13.4 thesis that levers the search
|
||||
cannot erode compound where shape levers do not.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,46 +0,0 @@
|
|||
#!/usr/bin/env bash
|
||||
# leaf_share_factor sweep under the winning bal+share stack (erc.7 second half,
|
||||
# DESIGN.md §13.5). The §13.5 synergy A/B fixed factor 3 (the §13.3 winner) and
|
||||
# showed depth-balancing × leaf-sharing survives to convergence (harbor −21 %,
|
||||
# non-overlapping). This sweep asks whether factor 3 is still the construction
|
||||
# optimum once depth-balancing is stacked on top: does collapsing FEWER (factor
|
||||
# 2) or MORE (factor 4) same-code rooms per shared leaf do better?
|
||||
#
|
||||
# Both knobs ON in every run (DEPTHBAL=1 LEAFSHARE=1); only LEAFSHAREFAC varies.
|
||||
# factor 3 bal+share is already known from run_synergy_ab.sh (maple 82.3, harbor
|
||||
# 40.0), so we only run 2 and 4 here. leaf_share_max (scoring cap, default 4)
|
||||
# already covers all multiplicities at factor ≤4, so no missing-fail leak — the
|
||||
# final native re-score (MISMATCH guard) verifies this per run.
|
||||
set -u
|
||||
cd "$(dirname "$0")/.."
|
||||
BUDGET="${1:-20000}"
|
||||
OUT=scratch/sharefactor_sweep; mkdir -p "$OUT"
|
||||
TSV=scratch/sharefactor_results.tsv
|
||||
[ -f "$TSV" ] || printf 'programme\tseed\tfactor\tfails\ttopologies\telapsed_s\n' > "$TSV"
|
||||
|
||||
run() { # programme seed factor
|
||||
local prog="$1" seed="$2" fac="$3"
|
||||
local tag="bal_sh1f${fac}"
|
||||
local log="$OUT/${prog}_${tag}_s${seed}.log"
|
||||
echo ">>> $prog seed=$seed bal+share factor=$fac"
|
||||
local t0; t0=$(date +%s)
|
||||
env URB_NO_OCCLUSION=1 LEAFSHARE=1 LEAFSHAREFAC="$fac" DEPTHBAL=1 \
|
||||
python3 experiments/run_staged_search.py "examples/$prog" "$BUDGET" "$seed" \
|
||||
"examples/$prog/init.dom" "$OUT/${prog}_${tag}_s${seed}.dom" > "$log" 2>&1
|
||||
local t1; t1=$(date +%s)
|
||||
local fails topos
|
||||
fails=$(grep 're-scored (native)' "$log" | tail -1 | sed -n 's/.*(\([0-9]*\) fails).*/\1/p')
|
||||
topos=$(grep -m1 '^evals' "$log" | sed -n 's/.*across \([0-9]*\) topologies.*/\1/p')
|
||||
printf '%s\t%s\t%s\t%s\t%s\t%s\n' "$prog" "$seed" "$fac" "${fails:-ERR}" "${topos:-?}" "$((t1-t0))" >> "$TSV"
|
||||
echo " -> ${fails:-ERR} fails, ${topos:-?} topologies, $((t1-t0))s"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
# factor 2 then factor 4, seeds 0/1/2 (factor 3 bal+share is in synergy_results.tsv)
|
||||
for prog in maple-court harbor-house; do
|
||||
for fac in 2 4; do
|
||||
for seed in 0 1 2; do run "$prog" "$seed" "$fac"; done
|
||||
done
|
||||
done
|
||||
|
||||
echo "=== leaf_share_factor sweep (bal+share) complete ==="
|
||||
column -t -s $'\t' "$TSV"
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,46 +0,0 @@
|
|||
#!/usr/bin/env bash
|
||||
# Leaf-sharing × depth-balancing synergy A/B (erc.7, DESIGN.md §13.5). The
|
||||
# decisive test the §13.4 floor probe set up: depth-balanced construction was
|
||||
# only MODEST standalone end-to-end (the 20k search erodes the seed advantage
|
||||
# via divide/undivide), but the floor probe showed bal+sh3 beats share3-alone
|
||||
# at EQUAL leaf count (harbor 65.3 vs 73.3, maple 113.7 vs 133.0) — additive on
|
||||
# the leaf-COUNT cut the search cannot erode. Does that additive seed floor
|
||||
# survive to convergence once stacked on leaf-sharing?
|
||||
#
|
||||
# Both arms keep LEAFSHARE=1 (factor 3, the §13.3 winner). The control arm is
|
||||
# share-alone (DEPTHBAL=0) — must reproduce §13.3 (maple 86.3, harbor 50.3);
|
||||
# the experiment arm adds DEPTHBAL=1 (depth-balanced grow). Seeds 0/1/2, two
|
||||
# programmes. Factor/max_share sweep is the second half of erc.7, run separately.
|
||||
set -u
|
||||
cd "$(dirname "$0")/.."
|
||||
BUDGET="${1:-20000}"
|
||||
FAC="${2:-3}"
|
||||
OUT=scratch/synergy_ab; mkdir -p "$OUT"
|
||||
TSV=scratch/synergy_results.tsv
|
||||
[ -f "$TSV" ] || printf 'programme\tseed\tdepthbal\tshare\tfactor\tfails\ttopologies\telapsed_s\n' > "$TSV"
|
||||
|
||||
run() { # programme seed depthbal(0|1)
|
||||
local prog="$1" seed="$2" bal="$3"
|
||||
local tag="sh1f${FAC}_db${bal}"
|
||||
local log="$OUT/${prog}_${tag}_s${seed}.log"
|
||||
echo ">>> $prog seed=$seed share=1 factor=$FAC depthbal=$bal"
|
||||
local t0; t0=$(date +%s)
|
||||
env URB_NO_OCCLUSION=1 LEAFSHARE=1 LEAFSHAREFAC="$FAC" DEPTHBAL="$bal" \
|
||||
python3 experiments/run_staged_search.py "examples/$prog" "$BUDGET" "$seed" \
|
||||
"examples/$prog/init.dom" "$OUT/${prog}_${tag}_s${seed}.dom" > "$log" 2>&1
|
||||
local t1; t1=$(date +%s)
|
||||
local fails topos
|
||||
fails=$(grep 're-scored (native)' "$log" | tail -1 | sed -n 's/.*(\([0-9]*\) fails).*/\1/p')
|
||||
topos=$(grep -m1 '^evals' "$log" | sed -n 's/.*across \([0-9]*\) topologies.*/\1/p')
|
||||
printf '%s\t%s\t%s\t1\t%s\t%s\t%s\t%s\n' "$prog" "$seed" "$bal" "$FAC" "${fails:-ERR}" "${topos:-?}" "$((t1-t0))" >> "$TSV"
|
||||
echo " -> ${fails:-ERR} fails, ${topos:-?} topologies, $((t1-t0))s"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
# share-alone control (reproduce §13.3) then the bal+share synergy arm, seeds 0/1/2
|
||||
for prog in maple-court harbor-house; do
|
||||
for seed in 0 1 2; do run "$prog" "$seed" 0; done
|
||||
for seed in 0 1 2; do run "$prog" "$seed" 1; done
|
||||
done
|
||||
|
||||
echo "=== leaf-sharing × depth-balancing synergy A/B complete ==="
|
||||
column -t -s $'\t' "$TSV"
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue