# Стенд-проверка (stage-2) · промт оператора: (универсальный) Ответ агента: { "worked": false, "confidence": 10, "verdict": "Built an IMM stale-feedback monitor and integrated it into a custom Adam training loop for the matched tabular Friedman#1 plus mlp_tiny benchmark. Across the required 8 paired seeds, the best idea configuration exactly matched the tuned baseline (delta_mean=0, p=1.0), so there is no observed training-metric win. A separate trained-MLP two-step stale-gradient diagnostic also produced zero alarms, meaning the stage-1 detection effect did not transfer quantitatively to this neural setup.", "metrics": { "baseline": "Friedman#1 tabular / mlp_tiny: tuned lr=0.01, 8-seed mean test MSE 8.567867696285248, std 0.9045233203943077; sweep means lr=0.001:25.60164165496826, lr=0.003:13.860755920410156, lr=0.01:8.352817177772522.", "idea": "IMM monitor with persistent alarm-triggered 4x Adam learning-rate reduction: best lr=0.01, 8-seed mean test MSE 8.567867696285248, std 0.9045233203943077; paired delta 0.0, p=1.0, 0/8 wins, verdict no measurable effect.", "diagnostic": "On 8 trained MLP runs with explicit two-step stale-gradient application, clean alarm rate 0.0 and stale-delay-2 alarm rate 0.0; stale final no-delay posterior ranged 0.8641-0.9253, while clean final no-delay posterior ranged 0.9713-1.0000." }, "bench_report": { "bench_version": 1, "track": "tabular", "model": "mlp_tiny", "metric_direction": "lower is better", "n_seeds": 8, "baseline": { "best_cfg": { "lr": 0.01 }, "sweep": [ { "cfg": { "lr": 0.001 }, "mean": 25.60164165496826 }, { "cfg": { "lr": 0.003 }, "mean": 13.860755920410156 }, { "cfg": { "lr": 0.01 }, "mean": 8.352817177772522 } ], "full": { "mean": 8.567867696285248, "std": 0.9045233203943077, "per_seed": [ 7.95448637008667, 9.628232955932617, 7.726639747619629, 8.101909637451172, 7.126259803771973, 8.949170112609863, 9.36670970916748, 9.689533233642578 ], "n": 8 } }, "idea": { "mean": 8.567867696285248, "std": 0.9045233203943077, "per_seed": [ 7.95448637008667, 9.628232955932617, 7.726639747619629, 8.101909637451172, 7.126259803771973, 8.949170112609863, 9.36670970916748, 9.689533233642578 ], "n": 8 }, "comparison": { "delta_mean": 0.0, "idea_wins": 0, "n_pairs": 8, "per_seed_diffs": [ 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ], "p_value": 1.0, "mde": 0.0, "mde_rel_pct": 0.0, "verdict": "no measurable effect", "system_worked": false }, "mechanism_signature": { "prediction": "Persistent stale feedback should lower the no-delay posterior and trigger intervention.", "observed": "On trained MLP dynamics with explicit two-step stale gradients, stale final no-delay posterior was 0.8641-0.9253 versus clean 0.9713-1.0000, but no run crossed the three-step alarm condition.", "confirmed": false, "clean_alarm_rate": 0.0, "stale_alarm_rate": 0.0, "stale_first_alarm_median": null } }, "how_to_run": "/home/maxwelhelp/main/bin/python3 bench_imm.py && /home/maxwelhelp/main/bin/python3 nn_signature.py", "files": [ "bench_imm.py", "nn_signature.py", "bench_report.json" ], "limitations": "Only the matched built-in tabular track was tested; vision, sequence, and dynamics were not tested. The canonical bench has no asynchronous acknowledgement or injected-delay protocol, so the main comparison had no actual stale feedback to detect. The monitor uses a simplified online diagonal observation model rather than fitted A_t/P_t delayed-state IMM filtering, and the explicit diagnostic was not used as the primary task-metric comparison.", "system_verdict": "failed", "practical_verdict": "no_effect", "mechanism_ok": 0, "system_judged": true }