Had Ariahw bars on the hack panel only -- misleading. Mirror them onto solve
(Fig 5 perf: GT 25.0%, probe 19.4%, LLM-judge 16.2%, base 11.5%, ceiling 22.3%).
Honest picture: the paper methods (incl. no-oracle LLM judge) beat routeV on both
axes because they are converged full-scale vs our 60-step surrogate -- caption
marks it directional-only. Cross-scale/maturity caveat (task #18) still stands.
Co-Authored-By: Claudypoo <288921227+claudypoo@users.noreply.github.com>
Read the figure PNGs directly (Fig 5 is a full numeric table the paper never
prints as text). Saved to docs/papers/ariahw_results_table_extracted.md so we
stop re-OCRing. Key correction: my 'LLM judge has no clean rate' was wrong --
LLM-judge PENALTY = 0.1% hack / 16.2% perf, NO oracle. So no-oracle suppression
is not routeV's novelty (the judge does it); the mechanism is (no live monitor,
gradient-level, fixed authored-pair direction). Plot now shows the judge as a
blue no-oracle peer bar alongside the grey oracle methods.
Co-Authored-By: Claudypoo <288921227+claudypoo@users.noreply.github.com>
The disqualifier for an intervention is needing the env oracle / ground-truth
hack-labels of the live training distribution, not 'a detector ran'. On a new
RL env there is no oracle, so GT-monitor and the (oracle-label-trained) probe
can't be built there; a generic LLM judge and our hand-authored-pair vector can.
LLM judge is thus the fair external peer (no clean fast-env number to plot).
Co-Authored-By: Claudypoo <288921227+claudypoo@users.noreply.github.com>
Rework per feedback: hack and solve are not opposites, so they get separate
floor->ceiling axes (each 0=floor..1=ceiling) rather than sharing a zero -- this
also stops solve (range ~0.13-0.22) being squished next to hack (0-0.61).
Minimal: routeV per-token (best) vs random-V (direction control) vs the SGTM
gradient-routing paper placed on the same floor->ceiling % axis (approx, LM task).
Reads: hack suppression 93% best / 84% control / ~98% reference (9pp = direction
signal); solve gained +17% / -17% / ~95% (far from ceiling -- model barely learns
to solve in 60 steps). Moved out/plots -> out/figs.
Co-Authored-By: Claudypoo <288921227+claudypoo@users.noreply.github.com>
