Skip to content

Co-research map: Simpson's paradox as an epistemic signal; P-pool probe - #1596

Merged
AdaWorldAPI merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
ccr-9f3b8075-74u47l-simpson
Oct 17, 2026
Merged

AdaWorldAPI merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
ccr-9f3b8075-74u47l-simpson

Conversation

@AdaWorldAPI

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What

These two commits from the 2026-10-17 co-research run were never pushed. They are cherry-picked here onto current main.

  1. Board entry 2026-10-17-coresearch-simpson-epistemic.md (status OPEN, ratifies nothing). The question opened when D-CGW-1: CE64 bits 43..45 are the orientation #1594 removed the per-edge Simpson carrier. The entry holds:

    • the premise split into four concepts;
    • five load-bearing findings;
    • a 14-row crosswalk with verdicts;
    • the seams that keep the revision gate pure set algebra;
    • nine pre-registered probes, each with a silence twin.

    Central finding: NAL revision of stratum beliefs equals the union recount, so it reproduces Simpson's reversal. NAL's overlap guard does not stop it, because disjoint strata pass that check trivially.

  2. Probe P-pool (lance-graph-planner/tests/simpson_revision_pooling.rs). It revises the Simpson fixture's two stratum beliefs with isa::truth, both at f32 and through the packed u8 register. It pins the reversal (exposed 0.6 vs unexposed 0.3, equal to the union recount) and checks the twins: the one-stratum robust fixture does not reverse, and two raising strata with balanced exposure admit.

Verification

cargo test -p lance-graph-planner --test simpson_revision_pooling on current main: 3 pass. The entries index was regenerated (entries_index.py --write, then --check is green, 365 rows). The README conflict was resolved by taking main's index and regenerating it.

Open

Which crosswalk rows go forward is a decision for the maintainer. Rows 9 (rename the misnamed simpsons_paradox_risk) and 10 (strata declared before the seal) are marked ADOPT-NOW in the map. Neither is implemented here.


Generated by Claude Code

Exploration map from the co-research council. Finds that NARS revision of
stratum beliefs equals the union recount, so it reproduces Simpson's
reversal, and that NAL's overlap guard does not stop it. Lists the
seams that keep the revision gate pure set algebra and nine pre-registered
probes. Ratifies nothing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011BMJnDBAfzcuQh5HeT39Rh
…union recount

Three cases over isa::truth revision (f32) and CausalEdge64::revision (u8):
the certification Simpson fixture reverses (0.6 vs 0.3 against both strata);
balanced agreeing strata do not reverse (silence twin); agreeing but
exposure-unbalanced strata still reverse, so 'pool only at Supports' is not
sufficient on its own.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011BMJnDBAfzcuQh5HeT39Rh
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Oct 17, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Important

  • 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration
  • Configuration used: Organization UI
  • Review profile: CHILL
  • Plan: Advanced
  • Run ID: 4d7ab88b-c4ea-4405-936e-dc471210243c
  • Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Warning

Billing warning: we have not been able to collect payment for this subscription for more than 72 hours. Please update the payment method or pay any pending invoices in Billing to avoid service interruption.

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@AdaWorldAPI
AdaWorldAPI marked this pull request as ready for review October 17, 2026 10:26
@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 17, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-10-17T10:28:44.846924Z 4241f54 Draft marked ready
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@AdaWorldAPI
AdaWorldAPI merged commit 4680ba8 into main Oct 17, 2026
12 checks passed

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 4241f541b8

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

//! beliefs equals the union recount, so it reproduces Simpson's reversal.
//!
//! A stratum belief "exposure → outcome" carries `f = hits / n` and
//! `c = n / (n + 1)`, so its evidence weight `c / (1 - c)` is `n`. Revision

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P1 Badge Bound the union-recount claim to unsaturated evidence

For larger cells, this identity does not hold in the production arithmetic: causal-edge/src/isa.rs::evidence_weight replaces any c >= 0.999 with f32::MAX, so an f32 cell with n >= 999 no longer has weight n; on the packed path, n >= 509 already rounds confidence to 255. Revising two such cells overflows the summed weight and can produce NaNs (which the register packs as zeros), rather than the union recount. Because the probe only uses n <= 90, it incorrectly presents a size-limited result as the central general finding; add saturation-boundary cases and qualify the conclusion.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants