Research notebook

Methods, data, and reproduction.

Each experiment links its question to a fixed protocol, candidate-level data, and an executable check. Compare exact policy performance, inspect ablations, and reproduce the published artifacts.

GB-001 · Goldbach partition selection

Finding small observed-to-expected partition ratios

Does ProofX's structural candidate selection recover more low-ratio integers than uniform sampling or an ascending scan, given the same evaluation budget?

Domain
Even integers 4–10,000
Budget
64 distinct candidates / run
Seeds
0, 1, 2
Metric
Recall of the bottom 5% of ratios

For each integer, G(n) counts unordered prime pairs, including equal primes. The ratio is G(n) / H(n), where H(n) is the leading unordered Hardy–Littlewood approximation. An exhaustive reference defines the lowest 5%, including boundary ties. Policies select candidates without reading that reference.

Results by seed

Loading the published manifest…

Sequential selection is deterministic: its three seed rows are the same control. These are small descriptive experiments, with no significance or speedup claim. Median candidate size helps reveal differences in where policies search.

Revision and environment
Available in the manifest.

Interpretation limits

In this published run, directed selection finds 19, 12, and 19 low-ratio inputs across the three seeds; uniform sampling finds 8, 4, and 4. The ascending control finds 26 in each row. Directed selection therefore does not beat both baselines here. The ascending control concentrates on small integers, where the approximation has the largest finite-size error; this result motivates comparisons within held-out size intervals.

The approximation has finite-size error, especially for small integers. Finding low ratios measures alignment with this chosen heuristic; it does not measure progress toward a counterexample. The policies visit different size distributions. Repeating this protocol on prespecified held-out intervals is necessary before arguing that a pattern generalizes.

The verifier independently checks every exact count and witness, hashes, domain, budget, and summary. It does not authenticate authorship or certify timings. Rerun the recorded policies and compare ledger hashes to check policy provenance.

Reproduce or verify

python -m codebase.cli benchmark goldbach --max-n 10000 --budget 64 --seeds 0 1 2 --output-dir results/reproduction
python -m codebase.cli benchmark verify results/reproduction

To check the published data, extract the ZIP to a new directory and pass that directory to benchmark verify. To compare a reproduction, compare the candidate-ledger hashes under artifacts in both manifests. Timing and environment fields will differ. On another platform, reference.jsonl can also differ in the last digit of a few floating-point values.

Method library

Collatz

Trajectory features and inverse-tree selection. Benchmark validation remains open.

Method and limitations

Finite certificates

Export search witnesses to named Lean theorems, checked by the kernel and an axiom audit.

Certificate boundary

Annotation calibration

Held-out metrics for a user-defined binary label. Anomaly labels carry no probability of a conjecture being false.

Calibration protocol

Sources and related computation

  1. Borwein, Choi, Martin & Samuels. Polynomials whose reducibility is related to the Goldbach conjecture. Ordered-count definition and Hardy–Littlewood formulation.
  2. Oliveira e Silva. Goldbach conjecture verification. Established large-scale computation and published data; ProofX's small comparison does not extend those bounds.
  3. mpmath. Zeta-zero documentation. zetazero returns zeros on the critical line; measuring their real part does not search for off-line zeros.

For reproductions and corrections, open a repository issue with the experiment ID, revision, command, and artifact. See the contribution guide.