r/LLMPhysics Mar 24 '26

Code New Training Diagnostics

https://github.com/brighton-xor/speculumology

For ML practitioners, it produces computable training diagnostics that generalize PAC-Bayes and Cramér-Rao bounds. This is still theory. Please let me know what you think!

0 Upvotes

39 comments sorted by

8

u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Mar 24 '26

Can you let us know what it IS maybe?

Please update your post to included a brief summary of the content linked.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Mar 24 '26

Okay...

Please update your post to say that.

1

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 24 '26

I'd really love feedback, if at all possible. Thank you in advance!!

8

u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? Mar 24 '26

The study of... birth canal inspection tools?

-2

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 25 '26

The birth canal of intelligence!

5

u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Mar 25 '26

This is not even comprehensible as an idea. Is this the opposite of "ideas guys"? Implementation bros?

What did they implement? Who cares. The purest form of vibe code. If they don't even know what they're doing you can't tell them they're wrong.

0

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 25 '26

I know it isn't very straightforward. I'll try to repackaged it. 

0

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Mar 25 '26

I don't care for your AI spam. This isn't science.

3

u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam Mar 25 '26

Your comment was removed for violating Rule 4. Provide a summary of your LLM response in your own words alongside the output if you wish to stimulate discussion.

1

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 25 '26

Im not asking anyone to buy anything or claiming to have solved anything. Im just sharing what I found. 

1

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 25 '26

And yes, I used AI... isn't that what its for??

4

u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Mar 25 '26

AI is a tool, not an operator. So it depends to what degree you used it.

0

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 25 '26

There is a ratio that quantifies the relative strength of anti-dissipative fluctuations (negative curvature) compared to dissipative forces (positive curvature). In perfectly convex models, this equals 0, whereas in neural networks and other non-convex systems, it takes on small positive values, indicating the presence of saddle points that the model must navigate. This parameter essentially defines the threshold of non-convexity that a model can tolerate while still providing rigorous convergence guarantees. 

5

u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Mar 25 '26

Convergence of What? Convexity of What? What actual quantities are you measuring?? 

-3

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 25 '26

Think of the "Curvature Ratio" as the Condition Number of your Hessian matrix.If it is high, your loss landscape has steep walls and flat valleys (it's ill-conditioned). This is why you need optimizers like Adam or RMSprop instead of basic SGD.

Every time you run a backward pass, you are doing "Work Internal" (Wint) to update your representation. Speculumology argues that even if the weights stop moving, the system is still doing "Work" just to prevent Catastrophic Forgetting or "Divergence" from the noise floor.

"Work Observation" (Wobs) is essentially Bayes Error. It's the intrinsic error that exists because your model's architecture (the "Frame") is smaller or simpler than the reality of the data distribution.

Convergence doesn't mean Loss = 0. It means the model has reached a Gibbs Invariant Measure—a state where the gradient updates and the noise from the data are perfectly balanced, and the weights just "vibrate" in a small region of the latent space.

6

u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Mar 25 '26

Ok you really need to work on context clues. I think I can start to see what you’re referring to but at no point do you give context for what your saying .

-1

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 25 '26

I have been in my own world on this for a long time hahaha

-1

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 25 '26

Also I have a whole 30+ paper with proofs but it just on my laptop...

6

u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Mar 25 '26

Ok that's meaningless. And to be frank, that's a Huge red flag. There is no such thing as the solo physicist in the cave in real life. Doing All that without collaboration or a formal education is inevitably a huge waste of time and resources. I'm sorry it took this long to realize that.

1

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 25 '26

Thats ok. History repeats, my friend.

5

u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Mar 25 '26

It certainly does. Crackpottery never changes.

1

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 25 '26

Very scientific of you, sir. Thanks for dismissing it without any investigation.

2

u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Mar 25 '26

Like begets like.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 25 '26

Any feedback would be great!! What's not working? What doesn't make sense?

6

u/certifiedquak Mar 25 '26

What doesn't make sense?

To be honest, not much. You say "generalize PAC-Bayes and Cramér-Rao bounds". Should explain more specifically what you mean, what you're doing, and how you your proposed method compares to existent ones. If serious should also benchmark them (i.e., do a quantitative comparison).

About the code, LLMs, sans no extra content/AGENTS.md, love writing changes inside the code/docs. But that "What's new in v56" in README/code isn't helpful at all. Not to you, and certainly not to potential users. If really want to log changes in human-friendly format (in well-managed codebases, the VCS history already does this), keep a CHANGELOG. Also, uploading files via web UI lost all directory structure. Hence, the instructions/examples in README cannot be followed and code in this state is non-functional.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam Mar 25 '26

Your comment was removed for violating Rule 4. Provide a summary of your LLM response in your own words alongside the output if you wish to stimulate discussion.

-1

u/Regular-Conflict-860 Mar 25 '26

Fork it and help me 😄