Dataset Viewer
Auto-converted to Parquet Duplicate
section
float64
5.1
5.4
check
stringlengths
35
108
passed
int64
1
1
detail
stringlengths
5
111
5.1
router_stability = 1.0 after the planted freeze
1
min post-freeze stability=1.0000
5.1
crystallisation_step recovers the planted freeze (2000)
1
recovered=2200.0
5.1
two INDEPENDENT routers look ~72% stable on raw Hamming but ~0 chance-corrected
1
raw=0.718 chance=0.722 adj=-0.013
5.1
a router that never settles returns None (NEGATIVE CONTROL)
1
got None
5.1
planted segmentation-BEFORE-capability -> 'SEGMENTATION FIRST' verdict
1
SEGMENTATION FIRST -- fixed substrate; route
5.1
planted capability-BEFORE-segmentation -> 'CAPABILITY FIRST' (NEGATIVE CONTROL)
1
CAPABILITY FIRST -- circuits precede stabl
5.1
asynchrony_test detects planted late low-resource crystallisation
1
rho=0.88 p=0.0269
5.1
tau1_window brackets the planted gap (1600, 4000)
1
window=(1800.0, 4200.0)
5.1
SYNCHRONOUS languages -> no asynchrony and NO principled tau1 (NEGATIVE CONTROL)
1
rho=0.00 p=1.000 window_valid=False
5.1
capability_inflection recovers a planted sigmoid inflection (3000)
1
got 3400.0
5.2
pool_chunks(mean) is the chunk mean
1
null
5.2
span-restricted pooling selects only overlapping chunks
1
null
5.2
planted SHARED geometry -> high whitened alignment gain
1
gain=1.000
5.2
planted UNRELATED languages -> ~zero gain (NEGATIVE CONTROL)
1
gain=-0.001
5.2
retrieval P@1 after alignment: shared high, unrelated at null
1
shared=1.00 unrelated=0.03
5.2
CKA/RSA (rotation-free) separate shared from unrelated
1
cka 1.00 vs 0.10, rsa 1.00
5.2
injected anisotropy lowers IsoScore and inflates off-diagonal cosine
1
iso 0.061 vs 0.902; offcos 0.16 vs -0.00
5.2
anisotropy_sensitive flag FIRES on anisotropic data
1
delta_gain=+0.762
5.2
anisotropy_sensitive flag is QUIET on isotropic data (NEGATIVE CONTROL)
1
delta_gain=-0.000
5.2
whitening recovers the true shared geometry under anisotropy
1
gain_white=1.000
5.2
pairwise_table reports probe accuracy and a full anisotropy audit
1
probe_acc_white=0.30 chance=0.33
5.2
width_sweep recovers a planted 'wider = more shared' trend
1
rho(N, sharing)=+1.00
5.2
width_sweep also recovers the accompanying drop in separability
1
rho(N, separability)=-1.00
5.2
sweep_verdict states the recovered trade-off in words
1
rho(N, separability) = -1.00; rho(N, sharing) = +1.00; wider chunks are MORE shared and LESS language-separated
5.2
compare_sources ranks planted sharing correctly (hnet > bpe > byte)
1
hnet:0.94 > bpe:0.42 > byte:-0.00
5.3
chunk_index_at / aligned_sites / misaligned_offsets place patches correctly
1
null
5.3
patch_effect is signed so that POSITIVE = improved prediction
1
null
5.3
region restriction strips the trivial within-span self-reconstruction credit
1
whole-sequence=0.2774 vs after-patch-only=0.1585
5.3
planted transferable content -> aligned patch improves prediction
1
effect=0.2342 CI=(0.19806601373115348, 0.27255066410129847)
5.3
content-MISMATCHED donor null is centred on ~zero
1
null=-0.0122 CI=(-0.029104634476045707, 0.004660881617882052)
5.3
aligned effect separates from the null (large d, p < 0.01)
1
d=2.13 p=0.0000
5.3
null success rate sits at its 0.05 construction value
1
0.050
5.3
ALIGNED (boundary) patching beats MID-CHUNK patching
1
delta=0.0699 p=0.0290 d=0.40
5.3
no-transfer model -> no significant effect (NEGATIVE CONTROL)
1
effect=0.00e+00 p=1.000
5.3
compare_checkpoints detects planted B > A transferability
1
B-A=0.1966 d=1.52 p=0.0000
5.3
identical checkpoints -> hypothesis NOT supported (NEGATIVE CONTROL)
1
B-A=0.00e+00 p=1.000
5.4
UD treebanks present on disk (>= 20 languages)
1
27 treebanks: am_att, ar_padt, cy_ccg, de_gsd, en_ewt, es_gsd...
5.4
load_ud reconstructs the surface string exactly (byte offsets are valid)
1
mean=0.9995, worst=fi_tdt 0.986
5.4
SIGMORPHON 2022 loader keeps only SURFACE segmentations (offsets exist)
1
40107 surface items, kept_frac=0.699
5.4
MorphyNet inflectional loader yields valid morpheme offsets
1
5000 items, surface_frac=0.718
5.4
planted 85%-recall router scores high F1 above a rate-matched random baseline
1
F1=0.846 random=0.071 above_chance=0.834
5.4
a RANDOM router at the same rate scores ~0 above chance (NEGATIVE CONTROL)
1
F1=0.051 above_chance=-0.027
5.4
AUROC of a signal-carrying router score is high; a random score is ~0.5
1
signal=0.907 random=0.556
5.4
EMA acting only on the low-confidence band is distinguishable from a entropy-matched generic regulariser
1
KS_lowconf ema=0.283 generic=0.190
5.4
a 'smoothing module' that is really just tempering is NOT distinguishable (NEGATIVE CONTROL)
1
KS_lowconf ema=0.190 generic=0.190
5.4
level_typing calls the dense level morph-like and the sparse level word-like
1
L1=morph-like (m=-0.35), L2=word-like (m=+0.35)
5.4
unit_length_stats reports both byte and character widths (continuous-script languages need chars, not bytes)
1
{'mean_bytes': 12.64, 'median_bytes': 12.0, 'n_units': 42, 'mean_chars': 4.31, 'median_chars': 4.0}
5.4
alignment_predicts_downstream reports a weak/no relation as such (the MorphScore-70 caveat)
1
R2=0.072 p=0.253
5.4
...and still detects a genuinely strong relation (NEGATIVE CONTROL)
1
R2=0.931 p=0.0000

H-Net dynamic-chunking: experiment results

Every result table behind the study, including the ones that failed. 21 experiments; each directory has a RESULTS.md alongside its machine-readable CSV/JSON.

Headline findings

experiment question verdict
exp21_tier1_pilot does a parity objective equalise chunk allocation? each beta variant equalises the denominator it targets (A→B +62.1% cps; Apc→Bpc +51.9% cpc), attributable — EMA and generic-regularisation controls do not reproduce it
exp26_crystallisation do boundaries stabilise before capability? no — capability first, 36/36 language-seed pairs; 20/36 never crystallise by step 6000
exp27_chunk_content are learned chunks linguistic? no — morpheme F1 at or below rate-matched chance; gold features add ≤0.001 AUROC over computational features in 9/9 languages
exp25_chunk_patching are chunks functional computational units? no — aligned-minus-misaligned at the construction rate (0/28 cells >2 SD), while killing the chunk pathway costs +0.34 nats/byte
exp28_difficulty_gate does chunking track difficulty? partial — boundary rate yes (+0.181 ± 0.057, 12/12 languages); chunk length no (wrong sign)
exp28_compute_knob is there an inference-time compute knob? no — one-sided; BPB is minimised at the training threshold and worse in both directions
exp28_mainnet_ablation how much is the chunk network worth? ~0.07 BPB, not the +0.51 a naive off-distribution ablation reports
exp24_neural_chunkers how do released chunkers segment? Bolmo-1B matches its distillation teacher at boundary F1 0.987 after 39.3B tokens

Reporting discipline

Pre-registered and applied throughout: every effect carries a null (shuffled, circular-shift, Gaussian-donor, or content-mismatched donor as appropriate); spread is reported across seeds, never pooled over items; boundary F1 always carries its rate-matched random baseline; FLOP claims state the counting rule (block(T,d) = 24 d²T + 2dT², causal-halved) and use measured chunk counts; both directions of every result were treated as publishable.

exp23_interp_validation validates the estimators against synthetic ground truth with a negative control for each positive check (49/49 passing).

Limitations

16.2M/22.5M params, 6000 steps, 3 seeds, one hierarchy stage. Only the final training step was retained, so all causal analysis is at step 6000 — which exp26 shows is before convergence for the low-resource half. Entropy is a byte 5-gram proxy; the model's own predictive distribution was never logged.

Companion models and probes.

Downloads last month
36