From aa1d457701521bbc54464090e5abc6bd9c0b91f5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: wassname Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 10:10:28 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Journal: first student hacks in #51 at ref_eq=13.5 Row 71-72 in #51 (projected, partial susp gate): hack_s=1/24 with elevated cin_s (0.214-0.227 vs prior 0.17-0.20). Isolated breakthroughs, not a sustained climb. Sets the upper bound for hack emergence under 25%-leaky projection; #52 vanilla will say whether the delay/rate is meaningfully different. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 --- RESEARCH_JOURNAL.md | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) diff --git a/RESEARCH_JOURNAL.md b/RESEARCH_JOURNAL.md index 8726f26..bf4d894 100644 --- a/RESEARCH_JOURNAL.md +++ b/RESEARCH_JOURNAL.md @@ -2,6 +2,27 @@ Append-only. New entries at the top, date-stamped. Never edit old entries. +## 2026-05-27 (e) — first student hacks in #51 at ref_eq=13.5 + +#51 (projected, no_gate target + 25% susp gate, Qwen3-4B, mix=0.5) row 71: +`hack_s=1/24` (first student hack). Row 72 also 1/24. Row 73 back to 0/24. +Isolated breakthroughs, not a sustained climb yet. + +`cin_s` at rows 71-72 was 0.214 / 0.227, above the prior 0.17-0.20 baseline. +First coincidence of `hack_s > 0` with elevated `cin_s` — consistent with +"loss gradient is pushing more hack-ward and some leaked through the susp +gate's 25% drop". + +This sets the upper bound for how aggressively hacking emerges under +partial projection. The decisive comparison is #52 vanilla (queued). +Two questions: +1. Does vanilla cross hack_s=1/24 earlier than ref_eq=13.5? +2. Once vanilla starts, does hack_s climb faster than projected's + isolated 0/1/1/0 pattern? + +A delay or a slower climb in projected (vs vanilla) is a positive signal +for the method even though the susp gate is leaving 25% leakage. + ## 2026-05-27 (d) — cin_s rising while hack_s stays zero (projected, mid-run) In #51 (projected no_gate, 100 steps, Qwen3-4B + 50% cached teacher pool),