SyncValsverifier → artifact → classifier → verdict
SyncVals · Trajectory

simjeb-bracket-fea-mass-prediction-real

claude-code claude-opus-4-8 ✗ failed GOOD_FAILURE ↑ View task
Solved from the instruction alone, tests/ and solution/ were withheld from the agent's workspace and restored only for grading.
Reward = tests/test.sh exit code (0 → resolved); the classification below is post-hoc and cannot change it.
Classification , post-hoc; cannot change the reward
GOOD_FAILUREHonest miss, the agent ran correctly but couldn't solve it. Expected for a hard task; the task is sound.
SubtypeInsufficient Performance - Hard ML Task
EvidenceTask requires simultaneous targets: rel_l2 < 0.204, MAE < 0.107, max_abs_err < 0.8. Agent achieved CV rel_l2 ≈ 0.288 with no-augmentation EMA, final model score 0.48 (partial credit), falling short of target for full reward. Agent's own OOF estimate: rel_l2 ≈ 0.225 (still 0.021 above target). Test output: 'raw_score: 0.48 < 0.5' → reward=0.0 (fail).
Root causeThis is a demanding ML regression task requiring rel_l2 < 0.204 on a tiny 100-sample dataset (148 total with val). The agent's methodical CV-based training achieved ~0.29 rel_l2, which falls short of the challenging 0.204 target. Hard benchmarks are legitimately difficult and 0.48 score indicates partial progress (threshold 0.359), but failing to hit the target is expected agent behavior, not a task specification problem.
RecommendationN/A - task is fine. This is a well-specified, challenging ML benchmark with clear input/output contracts and deterministic evaluation. The agent failed due to insufficient model performance given the tight accuracy targets, not due to task ambiguity or specification issues. Hard tasks at this difficulty level are supposed to have low pass rates.
Trajectory
Tool-by-tool agent trajectory
324 tool calls · 3 tool types · 324 steps
You are given point-cloud samples of 3D jet-engine bracket designs along with each bracket's FEA-derived mass (kg). Each point cloud is an unordered set of 2048 surface points in R^3; coordinates are pre-centered and rescaled so the axis-aligned bounding box of each bracket fits inside the unit cube. The mapping from geometry to mass is not given to you - you have to learn it from the data. Train a model that takes a `[2048, 3]` point cloud and predicts the scalar mass value. Your model is then applied to a held-out set of bracket geometries and the predictions are compared against the ground-truth FEA-simulated mass values. ## Files - `/app/data/{train,val,public_test}/samples.pt` - each file is a dict with keys `features` (shape `[N, 2048, 3]`) and `labels` (shape `[N, 1]`), both float16 on disk. Load with `torch.load(path, weights_only=True)`. - `/app/task_config.json` - architecture sizes and training defaults. - `/app/feature_schema.json` - input / label spec. - `/app/candidate_model.py` - the fixed PointNet-style architecture. Keep it as is; your saved checkpoint has to load back into this same architecture. - `/app/dataset.py` - a minimal loader for `samples.pt`. - `/app/train.py` - a small starter training loop you can extend or replace. ## What you must produce Write your trained checkpoint to `/app/outputs/model.pt` as a dict with the following required keys: - `state_dict` - your model's `state_dict()` mapping. - `feat_mean`, `feat_std` - length-3 tensors used to standardize the input coordinates before the forward pass. The same normalization is applied at inference time, so these are required. - `label_mean`, `label_std` - length-1 tensors used to standardize the target during training and de-standardize the model output at inference. The model's output is mapped back to physical units using these, so they are required too. The model must consume a `[B, 2048, 3]` tensor and produce a `[B, 1]` output. ## What you are optimizing Your predictions are measured against the true FEA-simulated mass labels with three error numbers, all lower is better: the relative L2 over the full set (the primary one), the mean absolute error, and the worst-case per-sample absolute error. A strong model needs to do well on all three, so do not trade one off against the others.
Let me start by exploring the environment to understand what I'm working with.
I'll start by exploring the environment to understand the task, data, and provided code.
bash
cd /app && ls -la && echo "---CONFIG---" && cat task_config.json && echo "---SCHEMA---" && cat feature_schema.json
output
total 14
drwxrws--- 3 h2tagent h2tagent  138 Jun 20 18:13 .
drwxr-xr-x 1 root     root     4096 Jun 20 21:23 ..
-rw-rw---- 1 h2tagent h2tagent 1639 Jun 20 18:10 candidate_model.py
drwxrws--- 5 h2tagent h2tagent   58 Jun 20 18:10 data
-rw-rw---- 1 h2tagent h2tagent 1183 Jun 20 18:10 dataset.py
-rw-rw---- 1 h2tagent h2tagent  499 Jun 20 18:10 feature_schema.json
-rw-rw---- 1 h2tagent h2tagent  581 Jun 20 18:10 task_config.json
-rw-rw---- 1 h2tagent h2tagent 3117 Jun 20 18:10 train.py
---CONFIG---
{
  "task_id": "simjeb-bracket-fea-mass-prediction-real",
  "dataset_name": "simjeb-bracket-fea-mass-pilot",
  "n_points": 2048,
  "point_dim": 3,
  "label_dim": 1,
  "label_per_point": false,
  "seed": 20260518,
  "model": {
    "feature_width": 64,
    "global_width": 256,
    "head_width": 128
  },
  "training": {
    "epochs": 1,
    "batch_size": 16,
    "lr": 0.001,
    "weight_decay": 0.0001,
    "loss": "MSE"
  },
  "evaluation": {
    "primary_metric": "mass_rel_l2_score",
    "secondary_metrics": [
      "mass_mae_score",
      "mass_max_abs_err_score"
    ]
  }
}
---SCHEMA---
{
  "version": "simjeb-bracket-fea-mass-pilot-v1",
  "input": {
    "type": "point_cloud",
    "n_points": 2048,
    "dim": 3,
    "coord_range": [
      -0.5,
      0.5
    ],
    "description": "Unordered surface point sample of a jet-engine bracket; each bracket mesh is centered at its bounding-box centroid and rescaled so the axis-aligned bounding box fits inside the unit cube."
  },
  "label": {
    "type": "scalar",
    "dim": 1,
    "description": "FEA-derived bracket mass in kg."
  }
}
Let me look at the model, dataset, and training files.
Let me examine the provided code files.
bash
cd /app && echo "===candidate_model.py===" && cat candidate_model.py && echo "===dataset.py===" && cat dataset.py && echo "===train.py===" && cat train.py
output
===candidate_model.py===
from __future__ import annotations

from typing import Mapping

import torch
import torch.nn as nn


class SharedPointMLP(nn.Module):
    def __init__(self, in_dim: int, widths: tuple[int, ...]) -> None:
        super().__init__()
        layers: list[nn.Module] = []
        prev = in_dim
        for w in widths:
            layers.append(nn.Conv1d(prev, w, kernel_size=1))
            layers.append(nn.BatchNorm1d(w))
            layers.append(nn.GELU())
            prev = w
        self.net = nn.Sequential(*layers)

    def forward(self, x: torch.Tensor) -> torch.Tensor:
        return self.net(x)


class PointNetRegressor(nn.Module):
    def __init__(self, feature_width: int, global_width: int, head_width: int) -> None:
        super().__init__()
        self.feature = SharedPointMLP(3, (feature_width, feature_width, feature_width))
        self.lift = SharedPointMLP(feature_width, (feature_width * 2, global_width))
        self.head = nn.Sequential(
            nn.Linear(global_width, head_width),
            nn.GELU(),
            nn.Linear(head_width, head_width // 2),
            nn.GELU(),
            nn.Linear(head_width // 2, 1),
        )

    def forward(self, points: torch.Tensor) -> torch.Tensor:
        x = points.transpose(1, 2).contiguous()
        x = self.feature(x)
        x = self.lift(x)
        x = x.max(dim=2).values
        return self.head(x)


def build_model(config: Mapping) -> PointNetRegressor:
    m = config["model"]
    return PointNetRegressor(
        feature_width=int(m["feature_width"]),
        global_width=int(m["global_width"]),
        head_width=int(m["head_width"]),
    )
===dataset.py===
from __future__ import annotations

from pathlib import Path
from typing import Iterable

import torch
from torch.utils.data import Dataset


class SampleStore(Dataset):
    def __init__(self, split_dir: str | Path) -> None:
        self.dir = Path(split_dir)
        payload = torch.load(self.dir / "samples.pt", map_location="cpu", weights_only=True)
        self.features: torch.Tensor = payload["features"].float()
        self.labels: torch.Tensor = payload["labels"].float()
        if self.features.shape[0] != self.labels.shape[0]:
            raise ValueError("features and labels must have the same number of rows")

    def __len__(self) -> int:
        return self.features.shape[0]

    def __getitem__(self, idx: int) -> tuple[torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor]:
        return self.features[idx], self.labels[idx]


def iter_batches(
    x: torch.Tensor,
    y: torch.Tensor,
    batch_size: int,
    shuffle: bool = True,
) -> Iterable[tuple[torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor]]:
    n = x.shape[0]
    idx = torch.randperm(n) if shuffle else torch.arange(n)
    for start in range(0, n, batch_size):
        chunk = idx[start : start + batch_size]
        yield x[chunk], y[chunk]
===train.py===
from __future__ import annotations

import json
import os
import sys
from pathlib import Path

import torch
import torch.nn.functional as F

APP_DIR = Path(os.environ.get("APP_DIR", "/app"))
sys.path.insert(0, str(APP_DIR))

from candidate_model import build_model  # noqa: E402
from dataset import SampleStore, iter_batches  # noqa: E402


def _device() -> torch.device:
    if torch.cuda.is_available():
        return torch.device("cuda")
    if torch.backends.mps.is_available():
        return torch.device("mps")
    return torch.device("cpu")


def _load_config() -> dict:
    with (APP_DIR / "task_config.json").open() as fh:
        return json.load(fh)


def main() -> None:
    cfg = _load_config()
    device = _device()
    torch.manual_seed(int(cfg["seed"]))

    train = SampleStore(APP_DIR / "data" / "train")
    val = SampleStore(APP_DIR / "data" / "val")

    feat_mean = train.features.mean(dim=(0, 1), keepdim=True)
    feat_std = train.features.std(dim=(0, 1), keepdim=True).clamp_min(1e-6)
    label_mean = train.labels.mean(dim=(0,), keepdim=True)
    label_std = train.labels.std(dim=(0,), keepdi
…[truncated]
Now let me look at the data. Let me check the environment (GPU, packages) and load the data.
Now let me inspect the data and environment.
bash
cd /app && python -c "
import torch, platform
print('torch', torch.__version__)
print('cuda available', torch.cuda.is_available())
if torch.cuda.is_available():
    print('device', torch.cuda.get_device_name(0))
print('python', platform.python_version())
import os
for split in ['train','val','public_test']:
    p = f'data/{split}/samples.pt'
    print('---', split, '---')
    d = torch.load(p, weights_only=True)
    print('keys', list(d.keys()))
    print('features', d['features'].shape, d['features'].dtype)
    print('labels', d['labels'].shape, d['labels'].dtype)
"
output
torch 2.5.1+cu124
cuda available True
device NVIDIA H100 80GB HBM3
python 3.11.10
--- train ---
keys ['features', 'labels']
features torch.Size([100, 2048, 3]) torch.float16
labels torch.Size([100, 1]) torch.float16
--- val ---
keys ['features', 'labels']
features torch.Size([32, 2048, 3]) torch.float16
labels torch.Size([32, 1]) torch.float16
--- public_test ---
keys ['features', 'labels']
features torch.Size([16, 2048, 3]) torch.float16
labels torch.Size([16, 1]) torch.float16
So we have: - train: 100 samples - val: 32 samples - public_test: 16 samples This is a small dataset. We have an H100 GPU. Let me analyze the data more: label distributions, coordinate ranges, etc. Let me dig into the data statistics.
We have an H100 GPU and a small dataset (100 train, 32 val, 16 public_test). Let me analyze the data distributions carefully.
bash
cd /app && python -c "
import torch
import numpy as np
for split in ['train','val','public_test']:
    d = torch.load(f'data/{split}/samples.pt', weights_only=True)
    f = d['features'].float(); l = d['labels'].float()
    print(f'=== {split} ===')
    print('label min/max/mean/std', l.min().item(), l.max().item(), l.mean().item(), l.std().item())
    # coordinate ranges
    print('coord min', f.amin(dim=(0,1)).tolist())
    print('coord max', f.amax(dim=(0,1)).tolist())
    print('coord mean', f.mean(dim=(0,1)).tolist())
    print('coord std', f.std(dim=(0,1)).tolist())
    # per-sample bbox extents
    ext = f.amax(dim=1) - f.amin(dim=1)  # [N,3]
    print('per-sample extent mean', ext.mean(dim=0).tolist())
    print('per-sample extent max', ext.amax(dim=0).tolist())
    print('per-sample extent min', ext.amin(dim=0).tolist())
"
output
=== train ===
label min/max/mean/std 0.207763671875 2.21875 0.7475781440734863 0.3894648551940918
coord min [-0.320556640625, -0.5, -0.2279052734375]
coord max [0.322998046875, 0.5, 0.22705078125]
coord mean [-0.013504491187632084, 0.007462748326361179, -0.0709712877869606]
coord std [0.14211857318878174, 0.2701786458492279, 0.0871192067861557]
per-sample extent mean [0.5887036323547363, 0.9991015791893005, 0.34989869594573975]
per-sample extent max [0.6435546875, 1.0, 0.4549560546875]
per-sample extent min [0.502197265625, 0.9912109375, 0.2757568359375]
=== val ===
label min/max/mean/std 0.293701171875 2.072265625 0.7621994018554688 0.41264674067497253
coord min [-0.3095703125, -0.5, -0.2279052734375]
coord max [0.31005859375, 0.5, 0.2275390625]
coord mean [-0.005372888408601284, 0.005196526646614075, -0.07424016296863556]
coord std [0.1418035924434662, 0.2656756639480591, 0.08837021142244339]
per-sample extent mean [0.59246826171875, 0.9992523193359375, 0.35378265380859375]
per-sample extent max [0.61962890625, 1.0, 0.4554443359375]
per-sample extent min [0.574462890625, 0.996337890625, 0.3458251953125]
=== public_test ===
label min/max/mean/std 0.1983642578125 1.44921875 0.7296066284179688 0.327779084444046
coord min [-0.309326171875, -0.5, -0.1865234375]
coord max [0.309326171875, 0.5, 0.1864013671875]
coord mean [-0.013821225613355637, 0.011655600741505623, -0.07381976395845413]
coord std [0.14321814477443695, 0.27090150117874146, 0.08569176495075226]
per-sample extent mean [0.5922698974609375, 0.9989013671875, 0.3443603515625]
per-sample extent max [0.61865234375, 1.0, 0.3729248046875]
per-sample extent min [0.584716796875, 0.99560546875, 0.290283203125]
Key observations: - Labels (mass) range roughly 0.2 to 2.2 kg. Mean ~0.75, std ~0.39. - The Y axis is always the longest dimension (extent ~1.0), normalized to fill the unit cube. X extent ~0.59, Z extent ~0.35. So these brackets are scaled so the bounding box fits in the unit cube, with the largest dimension = 1. This is the SimJEB (Simulated Jet Engine Bracket) dataset. The task is to predict mass from point cloud. Important physical insight: Mass = density × volume. Since the point cloud is a surface sample, and the shape is normalized to fit in a unit cube, the mass depends on the actual physical volume of the bracket. But wait , the coordinates are rescaled so the bounding box fits the unit cube. That means scale information is partially lost! However, the rescaling is uniform (same scale factor for all axes presumably, since it's "rescaled so the axis-aligned bounding box fits inside the unit cube"). Wait, let me think. If the rescaling were anisotropic (per-axis), then all brackets would have the same bounding box = unit cube. But here, the Y extent is always ~1.0 but X and Z extents vary (X ~0.5-0.64, Z ~0.28-0.46). This means the rescaling is *isotropic* (uniform scale): they scaled each bracket by 1/(max dimension) so that the largest dimension becomes 1, and the largest dimension happens to always be Y. So the relative proportions are preserved. But this means the absolute scale of each bracket is lost (normalized away). So the mass cannot be determined from absolute size. The mass must be inferred from the *shape* , the relative geometry , combined with presumably a fixed material density and the actual volume fraction. Hmm, wait. Actually, let me reconsider. The original brackets have different physical sizes. After normalization (dividing by the max extent), we lose the overall scale. So two brackets with identical shape but different sizes would look identical but have different masses. But actually, in the SimJEB dataset, all brackets fit in the same design envelope / mounting points , they're all designs for the same bracket problem with fixed bolt holes and mounting interface. So the physical scale is actually roughly the same across all brackets (they all must bolt to the same interface). So the normalization by bounding box doesn't lose much meaningful info because the real-world bounding boxes are similar. Actually, the mass then depends mostly on how much material fills the design envelope , i.e., the volume. With surface point clouds, we need to infer the enclosed volume from the surface samples. More material = thicker/bulkier geometry = heavier. So this is a learnable regression. A PointNet can learn features that correlate with volume/mass. Let me think about the constraints: 1. We MUST keep the architecture in candidate_model.py as-is. The checkpoint must load into `PointNetRegressor` with the config sizes (feature_width=64, global_width=256, head_width=128). 2. We save state_dict, feat_mean, feat_std (len 3), label_mean, label_std (len 1). 3. Model consumes [B, 2048, 3] and outputs [B, 1]. So I cannot change the architecture. But I can change the training procedure: epochs, optimizer, LR schedule, data augmentation, loss function, normalization. Key question: how is the model loaded and evaluated? Let me figure out the inference pipeline. The grader will: - Load candidate_model with build_model(config) - Load state_dict from my model.pt - Load feat_mean, feat_std, label_mean, label_std - For each test point cloud x: normalize x_norm = (x - feat_mean)/feat_std, predict p = model(x_norm), then de-normalize pred = p * label_std + label_mean. - Compare pred against ground truth. So I need feat_mean/std to be length-3 (applied per coordinate) and label_mean/std length-1. Wait, but there's a subtlety. In train.py, feat_mean is computed with keepdim and then squeezed to shape [3]. At inference, x is [B,2048,3]. Broadcasting (x - feat_mean)/feat_std with feat_mean shape [3] works fine since l …[truncated]
This is the SimJEB (simulated jet-engine bracket) dataset. Key facts: small dataset (100 train), mass spans ~0.2–2.2 kg, and the Y-axis is always normalized to extent 1.0 while X/Z vary , confirming isotropic scaling that preserves shape proportions. Let me establish baselines and check geometric structure.
bash
cd /app && python -c "
import torch, numpy as np
tr = torch.load('data/train/samples.pt', weights_only=True)
va = torch.load('data/val/samples.pt', weights_only=True)
pt = torch.load('data/public_test/samples.pt', weights_only=True)
ytr = tr['labels'].float().squeeze(1); yva = va['labels'].float().squeeze(1); ypt = pt['labels'].float().squeeze(1)

def rel_l2(pred, true):
    return (torch.norm(pred-true)/torch.norm(true)).item()
def mae(pred, true):
    return (pred-true).abs().mean().item()
def maxabs(pred, true):
    return (pred-true).abs().max().item()

# baseline: predict train mean
m = ytr.mean()
for name, y in [('train',ytr),('val',yva),('ptest',ypt)]:
    pred = torch.full_like(y, m.item())
    print(f'{name}: mean-predictor relL2={rel_l2(pred,y):.4f} mae={mae(pred,y):.4f} max={maxabs(pred,y):.4f}')

# Simple geometric features -> linear regression
def feats(F):
    # F: [N,2048,3]
    out = []
    ext = F.amax(1)-F.amin(1)  # [N,3]
    std = F.std(1)  # [N,3]
    mean = F.mean(1)
    # distance from centroid
    c = F.mean(1, keepdim=True)
    r = (F-c).norm(dim=2)  # [N,2048]
    rmean = r.mean(1, keepdim=True); rstd = r.std(1,keepdim=True); rmax = r.amax(1,keepdim=True)
    out = torch.cat([ext, std, rmean, rstd, rmax], dim=1)
    return out
Ftr = feats(tr['features'].float()); Fva = feats(va['features'].float()); Fpt = feats(pt['features'].float())
# standardize feats
fm = Ftr.mean(0); fs = Ftr.std(0).clamp_min(1e-6)
Ftr2=(Ftr-fm)/fs; Fva2=(Fva-fm)/fs; Fpt2=(Fpt-fm)/fs
# add bias
import torch
A = torch.cat([Ftr2, torch.ones(Ftr2.shape[0],1)],1)
sol = torch.linalg.lstsq(A, ytr.unsqueeze(1)).solution
def predict(F):
    A = torch.cat([F, torch.ones(F.shape[0],1)],1)
    return (A@sol).squeeze(1)
for name, F, y in [('train',Ftr2,ytr),('val',Fva2,yva),('ptest',Fpt2,ypt)]:
    pred = predict(F)
    print(f'{name}: linreg relL2={rel_l2(pred,y):.4f} mae={mae(pred,y):.4f} max={maxabs(pred,y):.4f}')
"
output
train: mean-predictor relL2=0.4602 mae=0.3031 max=1.4712
val: mean-predictor relL2=0.4706 mae=0.3024 max=1.3247
ptest: mean-predictor relL2=0.3995 mae=0.2607 max=0.7016
train: linreg relL2=0.2620 mae=0.1704 max=0.6364
val: linreg relL2=0.2650 mae=0.1884 max=0.5217
ptest: linreg relL2=0.3264 mae=0.2006 max=0.5644
So even simple hand-crafted geometric features with linear regression gets rel L2 ~0.26 on val. The mean predictor is ~0.47. So there's real signal. A good PointNet should beat linreg substantially. Let me check symmetry (reflection) to see if reflection augmentation is valid, and also investigate richer features to understand the ceiling. Let me check reflection symmetry: for each sample, reflect x->-x and find nearest-neighbor chamfer distance to original, to see if clouds are symmetric about x=0.
Simple geometric features already hit ~0.26 rel L2, so there's strong learnable signal. Let me check reflection symmetry (to validate augmentation options) and explore a stronger feature ceiling.
bash
cd /app && python -c "
import torch
tr = torch.load('data/train/samples.pt', weights_only=True)
F = tr['features'].float()  # [100,2048,3]
# Check symmetry about each axis plane via chamfer distance of cloud vs reflected cloud
def chamfer(a, b):
    # a,b: [P,3]
    d = torch.cdist(a, b)  # [P,P]
    return (d.min(1).values.mean() + d.min(0).values.mean()).item()/2
import random
idxs = list(range(0,100,10))
for axis in range(3):
    tot=0
    for i in idxs:
        a = F[i]
        b = a.clone(); b[:,axis] = -b[:,axis]
        # recenter b to a's centroid on that axis
        tot += chamfer(a, b)
    print(f'axis {axis}: mean self-reflection chamfer = {tot/len(idxs):.4f}')
# compare to typical nearest neighbor spacing
a=F[0]
d=torch.cdist(a,a); d.fill_diagonal_(1e9)
print('typical NN spacing sample0:', d.min(1).values.mean().item())
print('cloud extent', (a.amax(0)-a.amin(0)).tolist())
"
output
axis 0: mean self-reflection chamfer = 0.0406
axis 1: mean self-reflection chamfer = 0.0190
axis 2: mean self-reflection chamfer = 0.0964
typical NN spacing sample0: 0.014029333367943764
cloud extent [0.589599609375, 0.997314453125, 0.3468017578125]
The reflection chamfer distances: - axis 0 (x): 0.0406 - axis 1 (y): 0.0190 , smallest, so there's strong symmetry about the y-midplane? Wait, reflecting y->-y. Actually the centroid in y is ~0. Hmm, chamfer 0.019 is close to NN spacing 0.014. So the clouds are quite symmetric about the x-z plane (reflection of y). And also fairly symmetric about the y-z plane (reflection of x, chamfer 0.04). Axis 2 (z) least symmetric (0.096). So reflection about x (x->-x) and about y (y->-y) are approximately valid symmetries. This means I can use reflection augmentation along x and y with good validity, which doubles/quadruples data effectively while preserving mass. But wait, I need to be careful: the reflection is only a valid augmentation if the reflected shape is also a plausible in-distribution bracket with the same mass. Since mass is invariant to reflection regardless (it's a rigid transform + reflection, volume preserved), the mass label is exactly preserved for ANY reflection. The only question is distribution shift. Since the clouds are approximately symmetric about x and y planes, reflecting produces nearly the same distribution → safe and effective augmentation. Even reflecting z preserves mass exactly; it just might look slightly different but still a valid bracket orientation. Actually since test clouds are in canonical pose, and reflection about z might flip to a non-canonical pose... but z reflection: z->-z. The mean z is -0.07, so the shape isn't symmetric about z=0. Reflecting z would move mass to +z side. Could be off-distribution. I'll be cautious with z, but x and y reflections look safe. Actually, the cleanest mass-preserving augmentations that keep canonical pose: 1. Reflection about x (x -> -x): valid, chamfer small. 2. Reflection about y (y -> -y): valid, chamfer smallest. 3. Point subsampling / resampling (randomly pick 2048 with replacement or a subset): the surface is still represented. This is good regularization and matches that test is a specific sample of 2048. 4. Small Gaussian jitter on coordinates: simulates sampling noise. 5. Small anisotropic/isotropic scaling with corresponding... no, scale breaks normalization. 6. Small rotation about z or y by a few degrees. Actually, let me reconsider rotations. The canonical pose matters. Let me not do large rotations. Small jitter and reflections (x,y) and point resampling are the safmost. Let me also reconsider: since PointNet with max-pool is permutation invariant, point resampling (choosing a random subset of the 2048 points) during training acts as a strong regularizer and also makes the model robust. At test, we use all 2048. Using all 2048 at test but training on subsets is fine (max pool over more points). Hmm, but actually there's a subtlety with BatchNorm and the number of points , BN is over the channel dim across (batch*points), so number of points doesn't break it. Now let me think about the single most impactful thing: since the dataset is tiny (100), the biggest wins come from (a) training many epochs with good regularization, (b) augmentation, (c) weight averaging (SWA/EMA), (d) possibly combining train+val for final fit. Let me also reconsider the input normalization. I'll preserve aspect ratio by using isotropic scaling. Let me test both per-axis and isotropic during experiments. Let me also think about label normalization and loss. Let me check the distribution of labels , is it skewed? mean 0.75, min 0.2, max 2.2. Somewhat right-skewed. With MSE on standardized labels, large-mass samples (2.2) will dominate. That's actually good for max-abs and rel-L2 (which care about large errors). But might underfit small ones for MAE. Let me just try MSE first and measure all three metrics. Let me write a robust, configurable training script and run experiments. I'll build it to: - Load train/val. - Compute normalization (isotropic option). - Augment: reflection x/y, jitter, point resample, small rotation. - Train with AdamW, cosine schedule, gradie …[truncated]
The clouds are strongly symmetric about the X and Y mid-planes (reflection chamfer ≈ point spacing), so X/Y reflections are valid mass-preserving, in-distribution augmentations. Let me build a flexible experiment harness to tune training for the fixed architecture.
bash
cd /app && python -c "
from candidate_model import build_model
import json
cfg=json.load(open('task_config.json'))
m=build_model(cfg)
n=sum(p.numel() for p in m.parameters())
print('total params', n)
for name,p in m.named_parameters():
    print(name, tuple(p.shape))
" | head -40
output
total params 92289
feature.net.0.weight (64, 3, 1)
feature.net.0.bias (64,)
feature.net.1.weight (64,)
feature.net.1.bias (64,)
feature.net.3.weight (64, 64, 1)
feature.net.3.bias (64,)
feature.net.4.weight (64,)
feature.net.4.bias (64,)
feature.net.6.weight (64, 64, 1)
feature.net.6.bias (64,)
feature.net.7.weight (64,)
feature.net.7.bias (64,)
lift.net.0.weight (128, 64, 1)
lift.net.0.bias (128,)
lift.net.1.weight (128,)
lift.net.1.bias (128,)
lift.net.3.weight (256, 128, 1)
lift.net.3.bias (256,)
lift.net.4.weight (256,)
lift.net.4.bias (256,)
head.0.weight (128, 256)
head.0.bias (128,)
head.2.weight (64, 128)
head.2.bias (64,)
head.4.weight (1, 64)
head.4.bias (1,)
~92K parameters. That's a lot for 100 samples, so regularization matters. Let me build the experiment harness as a module. Let me create a training module with configurable options, so I can run experiments.
~92K params for 100 samples , regularization and augmentation will be key. Let me write a flexible training harness.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: create
path: /app/exp.py
file_text: from __future__ import annotations
import json, os, sys, copy, math
from pathlib import Path
import torch
import torch.nn.functional as F
sys.path.insert(0, '/app')
from candidate_model import build_model

DEV = torch.device('cuda' if torch.cuda.is_available() else 'cpu')
CFG = json.load(open('/app/task_config.json'))

def load(split):
    d = torch.load(f'/app/data/{split}/samples.pt', weights_only=True)
    return d['features'].float(), d['labels'].float()

TRX, TRY = load('train')
VAX, VAY = load('val')
PTX, PTY = load('public_test')

def metrics(pred, true):
    pred = pred.reshape(-1); true = true.reshape(-1)
    rel = (torch.norm(pred-true)/torch.norm(true)).item()
    mae = (pred-true).abs().mean().item()
    mx = (pred-true).abs().max().item()
    return rel, mae, mx

def augment(x, cfg):
    # x: [B,2048,3]
    B = x.shape[0]
    if cfg.get('refl_x'):
        s = (torch.rand(B,1,1,device=x.device) < 0.5).float()*(-2)+1
        x = x.clone(); x[...,0:1] = x[...,0:1]*s
    if cfg.get('refl_y'):
        s = (torch.rand(B,1,1,device=x.device) < 0.5).float()*(-2)+1
        x = x.clone(); x[...,1:2] = x[...,1:2]*s
    if cfg.get('refl_z'):
        s = (torch.rand(B,1,1,device=x.device) < 0.5).float()*(-2)+1
        x = x.clone(); x[...,2:3] = x[...,2:3]*s
    rot = cfg.get('rot_deg', 0.0)
    if rot > 0:
        # small rotation about y axis (vertical/long axis)
        ang = (torch.rand(B,device=x.device)*2-1)*math.radians(rot)
        ca, sa = torch.cos(ang), torch.sin(ang)
        xx = x[...,0]*ca.unsqueeze(1) + x[...,2]*sa.unsqueeze(1)
        zz = -x[...,0]*sa.unsqueeze(1) + x[...,2]*ca.unsqueeze(1)
        x = torch.stack([xx, x[...,1], zz], dim=2)
    jit = cfg.get('jitter', 0.0)
    if jit > 0:
        x = x + torch.randn_like(x)*jit
    sc = cfg.get('aniso', 0.0)
    if sc > 0:
        s = 1.0 + (torch.rand(B,1,3,device=x.device)*2-1)*sc
        x = x*s
    npts = cfg.get('npts', 0)
    if npts and npts < x.shape[1]:
        idx = torch.randint(0, x.shape[1], (B, npts), device=x.device)
        x = torch.gather(x, 1, idx.unsqueeze(-1).expand(-1,-1,3))
    return x

def run(cfg, trx, tr_y, seed=0, verbose=False):
    torch.manual_seed(seed)
    # normalization
    if cfg.get('iso_norm'):
        fm = trx.mean(dim=(0,1))
        fs = trx.std().repeat(3).clamp_min(1e-6)
    else:
        fm = trx.mean(dim=(0,1))
        fs = trx.std(dim=(0,1)).clamp_min(1e-6)
    lm = tr_y.mean(0); ls = tr_y.std(0).clamp_min(1e-6)
    fm_d, fs_d = fm.to(DEV), fs.to(DEV)
    lm_d, ls_d = lm.to(DEV), ls.to(DEV)

    model = build_model(CFG).to(DEV)
    wd = cfg.get('wd', 1e-4)
    opt = torch.optim.AdamW(model.parameters(), lr=cfg['lr'], weight_decay=wd)
    epochs = cfg['epochs']; bs = cfg.get('bs',16)
    warm = cfg.get('warmup', 20)
    def lr_at(ep):
        if ep < warm:
            return (ep+1)/warm
        p = (ep-warm)/max(1,(epochs-warm))
        return 0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*p))
    trx_d = trx.to(DEV); try_d = tr_y.to(DEV)
    vax_d = VAX.to(DEV)
    n = trx_d.shape[0]
    ema = copy.deepcopy(model); 
    for p in ema.parameters(): p.requires_grad_(False)
    ema_decay = cfg.get('ema', 0.0)
    loss_type = cfg.get('loss','mse')
    best = None; best_rel = 1e9
    use_ema_for_sel = cfg.get('sel_ema', True)
    for ep in range(epochs):
        model.train()
        for g in opt.param_groups: g['lr'] = cfg['lr']*lr_at(ep)
        perm = torch.randperm(n, device=DEV)
        for s in range(0, n, bs):
            idx = perm[s:s+bs]
            xb = trx_d[idx]; yb = try_d[idx]
            xb = augment(xb, cfg)
            xb = (xb - fm_d)/fs_d
            ybn = (yb - lm_d)/ls_d
            opt.zero_grad(set_to_none=True)
            pred = model(xb)
            if loss_type=='mse':
                loss = F.mse_loss(pred, ybn)
            elif loss_type=='huber':
                loss = F.smooth_l1_loss(pred, ybn, beta=cfg.get('beta',1.0))
            elif loss_type=='l1':
              
…[truncated]
output
New file created successfully at /app/exp.py
Let me run a baseline experiment and a few variations to understand what works. I'll start with a basic config and measure. Let me run several configs in one script to compare.
Let me run an initial sweep comparing augmentation, normalization, EMA, and loss choices.
bash
cd /app && python -c "
import exp, torch
base = dict(lr=1e-3, epochs=300, bs=16, wd=1e-4, warmup=20, loss='mse', eval_every=10, ema=0.0, iso_norm=True)
configs = {
 'baseline_iso': dict(base),
 'peraxis': dict(base, iso_norm=False),
 'refl_xy': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True),
 'refl_xy_jit': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, jitter=0.01),
 'refl_xy_ema': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, ema=0.999),
 'full_aug': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, jitter=0.01, npts=1024, rot_deg=10, ema=0.999),
}
for name,c in configs.items():
    accs=[]
    r = exp.run(c, exp.TRX, exp.TRY, seed=0)
    print(f'{name:16s} val rel/mae/mx = {r[\"val\"][0]:.4f}/{r[\"val\"][1]:.4f}/{r[\"val\"][2]:.4f}   ptest = {r[\"ptest\"][0]:.4f}/{r[\"ptest\"][1]:.4f}/{r[\"ptest\"][2]:.4f}')
"
output
baseline_iso     val rel/mae/mx = 0.1630/0.1115/0.3473   ptest = 0.3603/0.2467/0.5895
peraxis          val rel/mae/mx = 0.1713/0.1206/0.3392   ptest = 0.3419/0.2237/0.5572
refl_xy          val rel/mae/mx = 0.2089/0.1282/0.5741   ptest = 0.3163/0.1871/0.6252
refl_xy_jit      val rel/mae/mx = 0.2202/0.1416/0.5649   ptest = 0.3052/0.2044/0.4525
refl_xy_ema      val rel/mae/mx = 0.2275/0.1624/0.4961   ptest = 0.2749/0.1815/0.5322
full_aug         val rel/mae/mx = 0.2395/0.1571/0.6337   ptest = 0.2841/0.1964/0.4361
Interesting. The baseline (no augmentation) gets val rel 0.163 but ptest 0.36. The augmented versions get worse val but better ptest. There's a big gap between val and ptest performance, suggesting high variance due to tiny datasets and possible overfitting to val via selection. Wait , val has 32 samples, ptest 16. The discrepancy suggests the model selection on val overfits to val. The ptest numbers are more pessimistic. I'm worried about the reliability of these estimates. With 32 val samples, rel L2 is noisy. Let me think about a more robust evaluation: cross-validation. Combine train+val (132 samples) and do k-fold CV to get robust estimates. That would give better model selection and use more data. Actually, the real issue: the held-out test set is separate. I want a model that generalizes. The best way to estimate generalization with this little data is cross-validation over all labeled data (train+val+public_test = 148 samples). But I shouldn't select hyperparameters on public_test too aggressively. Still, using CV across pooled data gives the most robust estimate. Let me reconsider strategy: 1. Pool all 148 labeled samples. 2. Do K-fold CV to evaluate configs robustly (average over folds and seeds). 3. Pick the config that generalizes best (low mean rel L2 across folds, plus mae and max). 4. Train final model on ALL 148 samples with that config (and an ensemble via weight averaging / multiple seeds won't work for single checkpoint... but I can average the selection across epochs with EMA). Wait, for the final model I must produce ONE state_dict. I can't ensemble multiple models (different random inits) into one state_dict by averaging weights , averaging weights of independently trained nets doesn't work (permutation symmetry). But EMA/SWA of a single trajectory works. However, I realize there's a subtlety. The metrics are computed over "the full set" for rel L2. The held-out set size is unknown. Let me just optimize for robust generalization. Let me reconsider the baseline result: without augmentation, val rel 0.16 is quite good but ptest 0.36 is bad. This inconsistency suggests the val/ptest sets are just small and different, OR the model overfits. The baseline uses iso_norm and 300 epochs, selecting best epoch on val. Selecting best on val with 32 samples can overfit to val. I think robust CV is the way to get trustworthy signal. Let me implement k-fold CV pooling train+val (keep public_test as a final untouched check). Actually, let me pool train+val for CV (132 samples), and use public_test purely as a final sanity check (not for selection). That keeps public_test somewhat independent. Let me restructure: implement a CV evaluation that, for a given config, runs K folds, trains on K-1 folds, evaluates on held fold, and aggregates predictions across all folds to compute overall metrics (like the real metric computed over full set). Average over a couple seeds for stability. This is more expensive but H100 makes it fast. Each training ~300 epochs * ~8 batches = 2400 iters, fast. K=5 folds * a few seeds , still quick. Let me also reconsider: the selection of "best epoch" within run() uses val fold, which is legitimate in CV (the held fold is the val fold). But then the reported metric is on that same fold → optimistic because we selected the best epoch on it. To avoid leakage, in CV I should NOT select best epoch on the held fold; instead use a fixed schedule and take the final model (or EMA). Or use a nested scheme. Simplest unbiased approach: train for fixed epochs, use EMA final weights (no peeking at held fold), evaluate on held fold. That gives an honest estimate. Let me rewrite the evaluation to support CV with fixed-epoch training (no per-fold early stopping), using EMA or final weights, aggregating out-of-fold predictions. Let me refactor exp.py into a cleaner trainer that takes explicit train/val tensors and returns predictions on val using final (or EMA) weights, without selection. Then a CV dr …[truncated]
There's a large val↔public_test gap , with only 32/16 samples, selecting the best epoch on val overfits. I need robust evaluation. Let me switch to K-fold cross-validation with fixed-schedule training (no peeking) to get honest estimates, aggregating out-of-fold predictions like the real metric.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/exp.py
old_str: def run(cfg, trx, tr_y, seed=0, verbose=False):
new_str: def train_predict(cfg, trx, tr_y, valx, seed=0):
    """Train with a FIXED schedule (no peeking at val) and return val predictions
    (physical units) using EMA weights if enabled else final weights."""
    torch.manual_seed(seed)
    if cfg.get('iso_norm', True):
        fm = trx.mean(dim=(0,1)); fs = trx.std().repeat(3).clamp_min(1e-6)
    else:
        fm = trx.mean(dim=(0,1)); fs = trx.std(dim=(0,1)).clamp_min(1e-6)
    lm = tr_y.mean(0); ls = tr_y.std(0).clamp_min(1e-6)
    fm_d, fs_d, lm_d, ls_d = fm.to(DEV), fs.to(DEV), lm.to(DEV), ls.to(DEV)
    model = build_model(CFG).to(DEV)
    opt = torch.optim.AdamW(model.parameters(), lr=cfg['lr'], weight_decay=cfg.get('wd',1e-4))
    epochs = cfg['epochs']; bs = cfg.get('bs',16); warm = cfg.get('warmup',20)
    def lr_at(ep):
        if ep < warm: return (ep+1)/warm
        p=(ep-warm)/max(1,(epochs-warm)); return cfg.get('min_lr_frac',0.0)+(1-cfg.get('min_lr_frac',0.0))*0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*p))
    trx_d = trx.to(DEV); try_d = tr_y.to(DEV); valx_d = valx.to(DEV)
    n = trx_d.shape[0]
    ema = copy.deepcopy(model)
    for p in ema.parameters(): p.requires_grad_(False)
    ema_decay = cfg.get('ema',0.0); loss_type = cfg.get('loss','mse')
    swa_state=None; swa_n=0; swa_start=cfg.get('swa_start', epochs+1)
    for ep in range(epochs):
        model.train()
        for g in opt.param_groups: g['lr']=cfg['lr']*lr_at(ep)
        perm = torch.randperm(n, device=DEV)
        for s in range(0,n,bs):
            idx=perm[s:s+bs]; xb=trx_d[idx]; yb=try_d[idx]
            xb=augment(xb,cfg); xb=(xb-fm_d)/fs_d; ybn=(yb-lm_d)/ls_d
            opt.zero_grad(set_to_none=True); pred=model(xb)
            if loss_type=='mse': loss=F.mse_loss(pred,ybn)
            elif loss_type=='huber': loss=F.smooth_l1_loss(pred,ybn,beta=cfg.get('beta',1.0))
            elif loss_type=='l1': loss=F.l1_loss(pred,ybn)
            elif loss_type=='mse_l1': loss=F.mse_loss(pred,ybn)+cfg.get('l1w',0.5)*F.l1_loss(pred,ybn)
            loss.backward(); torch.nn.utils.clip_grad_norm_(model.parameters(),cfg.get('clip',5.0)); opt.step()
            if ema_decay>0:
                with torch.no_grad():
                    for pe,pm in zip(ema.parameters(),model.parameters()): pe.mul_(ema_decay).add_(pm,alpha=1-ema_decay)
                    for be,bm in zip(ema.buffers(),model.buffers()): be.copy_(bm)
        if ep>=swa_start:
            with torch.no_grad():
                if swa_state is None:
                    swa_state={k:v.detach().clone().float() for k,v in model.state_dict().items()}; swa_n=1
                else:
                    swa_n+=1
                    for k,v in model.state_dict().items(): swa_state[k].mul_((swa_n-1)/swa_n).add_(v.float()/swa_n)
    # choose weights
    if swa_state is not None:
        final=build_model(CFG).to(DEV); final.load_state_dict({k:v.to(DEV) for k,v in swa_state.items()})
        # recompute BN stats in train mode over a few passes
        final.train()
        with torch.no_grad():
            for _ in range(cfg.get('swa_bn_passes',5)):
                perm=torch.randperm(n,device=DEV)
                for s in range(0,n,bs):
                    idx=perm[s:s+bs]; xb=augment(trx_d[idx],cfg); final((xb-fm_d)/fs_d)
        src=final
    elif ema_decay>0:
        src=ema
    else:
        src=model
    src.eval()
    with torch.no_grad():
        vp=src((valx_d-fm_d)/fs_d)*ls_d+lm_d
    return vp.cpu(), {k:v.detach().cpu().clone() for k,v in src.state_dict().items()}, fm,fs,lm,ls

def cv_eval(cfg, X, Y, k=5, seeds=(0,1), verbose=False):
    N=X.shape[0]
    g=torch.Generator().manual_seed(12345)
    all_rel=[]; all_mae=[]; all_mx=[]
    for seed in seeds:
        perm=torch.randperm(N, generator=g)
        preds=torch.zeros(N,1); 
        for f in range(k):
            val_idx=perm[f::k]
            mask=torch.ones(N,dtype=torch.bool); mask[val_idx]=False
         
…[truncated]
output
The file /app/exp.py has been edited successfully.
Now let me run CV evaluation on the pooled train+val data for several configs. Let me pool train+val (132 samples) and run 5-fold CV with 2 seeds. Let me time it first with one config.
Now let me run honest 5-fold CV (pooling train+val = 132 samples) across the key configs.
bash
cd /app && python -c "
import exp, torch, time
X=torch.cat([exp.TRX, exp.VAX],0); Y=torch.cat([exp.TRY, exp.VAY],0)
print('pooled', X.shape, Y.shape)
base = dict(lr=1e-3, epochs=250, bs=16, wd=1e-4, warmup=20, loss='mse', iso_norm=True, ema=0.999)
configs = {
 'noaug_ema': dict(base),
 'refl_xy': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True),
 'refl_xy_jit': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, jitter=0.01),
 'refl_x': dict(base, refl_x=True),
 'peraxis_reflxy': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, iso_norm=False),
}
for name,c in configs.items():
    t=time.time()
    rel,mae,mx = exp.cv_eval(c, X, Y, k=5, seeds=(0,1))
    print(f'{name:18s} CV rel={rel:.4f} mae={mae:.4f} mx={mx:.4f}  ({time.time()-t:.0f}s)')
"
output
[stderr]
Shell command timed out.
Tool interaction exceeded 300 seconds.
bash
restart: true
output
<system>tool has been restarted.</system>
The CV over 5 folds * 2 seeds * 5 configs * 250 epochs was too much for 300s. Let me time a single run first and run things in the background, writing results to a file. Let me be more careful about time budget. Let me time one CV eval (5 folds, 1 seed).
The full sweep exceeded the time limit. Let me time a single run and use background jobs writing to files.
bash
cd /app && timeout 280 python -c "
import exp, torch, time
X=torch.cat([exp.TRX, exp.VAX],0); Y=torch.cat([exp.TRY, exp.VAY],0)
c = dict(lr=1e-3, epochs=250, bs=16, wd=1e-4, warmup=20, loss='mse', iso_norm=True, ema=0.999, refl_x=True, refl_y=True)
t=time.time()
vp,_,_,_,_,_ = exp.train_predict(c, X[:110], Y[:110], X[110:], seed=0)
print('one train (250 ep, 110 samples):', f'{time.time()-t:.1f}s')
" 
output
one train (250 ep, 110 samples): 10.8s
One training run of 250 epochs takes ~11s. So 5 folds * 2 seeds = 10 runs = ~110s per config. 5 configs = 550s > 300s. That's why it timed out. Let me run in the background and poll. I'll write a driver script that evaluates configs and appends to a results file. Let me run it with nohup in background. Let me reduce: use k=5, seeds=(0,1) → 10 runs/config ~110s. I'll run a few configs per background job. Let me make a reusable sweep script that reads config name from argv and writes results to a log.
Each run is ~11s, so a full CV config (5 folds × 2 seeds) is ~110s. I'll run sweeps in the background and poll the log.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: create
path: /app/sweep.py
file_text: import exp, torch, time, sys, json
X=torch.cat([exp.TRX, exp.VAX],0); Y=torch.cat([exp.TRY, exp.VAY],0)
base = dict(lr=1e-3, epochs=250, bs=16, wd=1e-4, warmup=20, loss='mse', iso_norm=True, ema=0.999)
ALL = {
 'noaug_ema': dict(base),
 'refl_xy': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True),
 'refl_xy_jit': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, jitter=0.01),
 'refl_x': dict(base, refl_x=True),
 'peraxis_reflxy': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, iso_norm=False),
 'refl_xy_wd3': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, wd=1e-3),
 'refl_xy_jit005': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, jitter=0.005),
 'refl_xyz': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, refl_z=True),
 'refl_xy_npts': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, npts=1024),
 'refl_xy_huber': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, loss='huber', beta=0.5),
 'refl_xy_ep400': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, epochs=400),
 'refl_xy_bs32': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, bs=32),
 'refl_xy_swa': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, ema=0.0, swa_start=150),
 'refl_xy_rot': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, rot_deg=8),
 'refl_xy_aniso': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, aniso=0.05),
 'refl_xy_lr2': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, lr=2e-3),
 'refl_xy_msel1': dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, loss='mse_l1', l1w=0.3),
}
names = sys.argv[1:]
out = open('/app/sweep_results.log','a')
for name in names:
    c = ALL[name]
    t=time.time()
    rel,mae,mx = exp.cv_eval(c, X, Y, k=5, seeds=(0,1))
    line=f'{name:20s} CV rel={rel:.4f} mae={mae:.4f} mx={mx:.4f}  ({time.time()-t:.0f}s)'
    print(line, flush=True); out.write(line+'\n'); out.flush()
out.close()
output
New file created successfully at /app/sweep.py
bash
cd /app && rm -f sweep_results.log && nohup python sweep.py noaug_ema refl_xy refl_xy_jit refl_x peraxis_reflxy > sweep1.out 2>&1 &
echo "started pid $!"
output
started pid 234
Let me wait and poll. Meanwhile, let me think more. While that runs, let me reconsider the problem. The CV estimates will tell me which config generalizes. But I should also think about whether there's a fundamentally better approach within the architecture constraints. Key insight: the relationship is geometry → mass. The PointNet with max-pooling captures global shape statistics. The bottleneck is the tiny dataset. Augmentation + EMA/SWA + regularization are the main levers. Let me wait for results.
While the first sweep runs, let me monitor it.
bash
cd /app && sleep 240 && cat sweep_results.log 2>/dev/null; echo "---running?---"; jobs -l 2>/dev/null; ps aux | grep sweep.py | grep -v grep | head
output
noaug_ema            CV rel=0.2880 mae=0.1796 mx=1.0044  (92s)
refl_xy              CV rel=0.3099 mae=0.1978 mx=0.9786  (113s)
---running?---
[1]+   234 Running                 cd /app && rm -f sweep_results.log && nohup python sweep.py noaug_ema refl_xy refl_xy_jit refl_x peraxis_reflxy > sweep1.out 2>&1 &
h2tagent   238 97.1 16.2 19816940 5111392 ?    Rl   21:33   3:57 python sweep.py noaug_ema refl_xy refl_xy_jit refl_x peraxis_reflxy
Interesting! The CV estimates are much more pessimistic than the single val split. noaug_ema gives CV rel=0.288, refl_xy gives 0.31. And max error ~1.0 (quite high). These are honest out-of-fold estimates (no peeking), so they're more trustworthy. Hmm, these are worse than the earlier val-selected numbers (0.16) because: 1. No early stopping / best-epoch selection on the held fold (honest). 2. Averaging over folds and seeds. So the true generalization is around rel 0.28-0.31. That's better than linreg (0.26... wait, linreg got 0.265 on val). Hmm, actually linreg on val got 0.265, and these CV numbers are 0.29. That's concerning , the PointNet with fixed schedule + EMA might be underperforming simple linreg! Wait, but linreg was evaluated on a single val split (train→val), not CV. Let me do a fair CV comparison with linreg using the same folds. Actually, let me reconsider. The max error of ~1.0 is very high , that means some sample is predicted off by 1.0 kg. Given labels up to 2.2, that's a sample where the model fails badly. The heaviest samples (mass 2.2) are rare; in CV when they're in the held fold, the model hasn't seen such heavy examples and underpredicts. This is the core challenge: extrapolation to rare heavy brackets. Let me reconsider. The noaug actually does better than refl_xy in CV. Interesting , maybe reflection augmentation isn't helping because the data isn't perfectly symmetric, or because EMA + reflection needs more epochs. Let me wait for the remaining configs (refl_xy_jit, refl_x, peraxis_reflxy), then launch the second batch. Let me think about whether the fixed-schedule (no selection) is too pessimistic vs what I'll actually do for the final model. Actually, the honest CV is the right target. But my final model CAN use some form of selection/averaging. The question is what gives the best generalization. SWA over the last portion of training is a principled way to get a good single model without peeking. Let me make sure I test SWA well. Let me also reconsider: maybe the model needs MORE regularization (higher weight decay) or a smaller effective capacity to avoid the high max-error. Or maybe it needs the heavy samples weighted more. Another thought: since rel L2 and max error care about the heavy samples, and MAE cares about typical samples, I could weight samples by their mass (or use a loss that emphasizes large masses). But careful , overweighting heavy samples could hurt MAE/typical. Actually, a cleaner idea for the max-error / heavy-sample problem: the issue is extrapolation. A PointNet trained with MSE on standardized labels already penalizes large errors quadratically. The problem is just lack of heavy training examples in some folds. In the FINAL model, I train on ALL data, so the heavy samples (2.2) ARE included, which helps. The CV underestimates final performance on heavy samples because it holds them out. So the final model should be better than CV suggests for the heavy end. Good. Let me keep CV for relative config comparison but remember the final model trained on all data will be better. Let me wait for the rest.
CV gives honest (more pessimistic) estimates ~0.29 rel L2, with high max-error (~1.0) driven by rare heavy brackets held out in folds. Note: the final model trains on ALL data (including heavy samples), so it should beat CV on the heavy end. Let me wait for the remaining configs.
bash
cd /app && sleep 200 && cat sweep_results.log; echo "---"; ps aux | grep sweep.py | grep -v grep | wc -l
output
noaug_ema            CV rel=0.2880 mae=0.1796 mx=1.0044  (92s)
refl_xy              CV rel=0.3099 mae=0.1978 mx=0.9786  (113s)
refl_xy_jit          CV rel=0.3808 mae=0.2342 mx=1.1802  (96s)
refl_x               CV rel=0.3101 mae=0.1985 mx=0.9633  (89s)
---
1
So far: - noaug_ema: rel 0.288 (best) - refl_xy: 0.31 - refl_xy_jit: 0.38 (jitter hurts) - refl_x: 0.31 - peraxis_reflxy: pending Jitter clearly hurts. Reflection slightly hurts vs no-aug here. Interesting. The no-augmentation EMA model is best so far. Let me reconsider. Maybe the issue is that augmentation with this tiny model and MSE needs more epochs to converge, and the fixed 250-epoch schedule penalizes augmented versions. Or maybe augmentation genuinely adds noise that hurts. Wait, but I should reconsider whether my CV is too harsh/noisy. rel L2 differences of 0.28 vs 0.31 over 132 samples with 2 seeds , is that significant? The max error ~1.0 dominates rel L2 (since rel L2 ~ RMSE-like). Let me look: one bad sample with error ~1.0 contributes 1.0 to the numerator norm. With 132 samples and true norm ~ sqrt(132 * 0.75^2) ≈ sqrt(74) ≈ 8.6. So a single error of 1.0 contributes 1.0/8.6 ≈ 0.12 to rel L2 by itself (in quadrature). So the heavy outliers dominate. This means reducing the worst-case error is key to all three metrics. So the heavy brackets (mass ~2.2, or unusual shapes) are the crux. In CV they're held out and badly predicted. For the final model (trained on all data), these heavy samples are in training. But the held-out TEST set might also contain heavy/unusual brackets that we can't see. So robustness/extrapolation matters. Strategies to improve heavy-end prediction: 1. Sample weighting: weight loss by mass so heavy samples matter more. But in CV they're held out, so this won't help CV directly, but helps final. 2. More capacity/better features? Architecture fixed. 3. Better regularization to reduce variance. Let me reconsider whether no-aug truly generalizes best, or whether it's just that augmentation as I implemented disrupts convergence. Let me wait for peraxis, then run batch 2 with: wd variations, swa, huber, bs32, ep400, and a mass-weighted loss. Also I want to test a no-aug config with higher wd and longer training. Actually, let me reconsider the whole setup. Let me also compare against a proper CV linear regression baseline to know the target. And let me examine: is EMA helping or hurting vs plain final? Let me add those tests. Let me wait for peraxis and then launch batch 2. Let me think about the mass-weighted loss more concretely. rel L2 = ||pred-true|| / ||true||. To directly minimize rel L2, the gradient w.r.t. predictions is proportional to (pred-true)/||true||·||... it's basically weighted MSE but the normalization is global. MSE on unstandardized mass would directly target sum of squared errors = numerator of rel L2 squared. Since ||true|| is constant, minimizing MSE on PHYSICAL mass (not standardized) is equivalent to minimizing rel L2! Currently I standardize labels (divide by ls≈0.39) and do MSE , that's equivalent up to constant scaling, same minimizer. So MSE standardized == MSE physical for the minimizer. Fine. But for max-error, I might benefit from a loss that penalizes the largest errors more, e.g., a higher-power loss (p=3 or 4) or explicit max penalty. But that could destabilize. Huber goes the opposite way (less sensitive to outliers) , good for MAE, bad for max. Given rel L2 and max both favor penalizing large errors, and MAE favors L1, there's tension. Since rel L2 is primary and dominated by large errors, I lean toward MSE or even higher power. Let me test an "mse + max penalty" or p=3 loss. Let me also consider: maybe predicting in physical units directly (label_std=1, label_mean=0)? No, standardization helps optimization; same minimizer. Let me wait and then launch batch 2 with promising directions.
Jitter hurts; reflection is roughly neutral-to-slightly-negative; plain EMA no-aug leads. The heavy outliers dominate rel-L2 (a single 1.0 error ≈ 0.12 of rel-L2). Let me launch a second batch probing regularization, SWA, loss shape, and longer training, plus a CV linreg reference.
bash
cd /app && sleep 30; cat sweep_results.log | tail -1
cat >> /app/sweep.py << 'EOF'
EOF
nohup python sweep.py refl_xy_wd3 refl_xy_swa refl_xy_ep400 refl_xy_bs32 refl_xy_huber refl_xy_msel1 > sweep2.out 2>&1 &
echo "started batch2 pid $!"
output
peraxis_reflxy       CV rel=0.2809 mae=0.1842 mx=0.8410  (85s)
started batch2 pid 278
Interesting! peraxis_reflxy gives rel=0.2809, mae=0.1842, mx=0.8410 , the best rel and best max so far! Per-axis normalization (not isotropic) with reflection xy is better. That contradicts my earlier assumption that isotropic preserves shape better. Let me reconsider: per-axis normalization stretches each axis to unit std, which emphasizes the z-axis variation (which has small std 0.087). This apparently helps the model discriminate. So per-axis normalization is better. Let me incorporate that. Let me add more per-axis configs to the sweep. While batch 2 runs (isotropic configs , hmm, I should have made them per-axis). Let me prepare batch 3 with per-axis variants since peraxis is winning. Let me update sweep.py to add per-axis configs and a CV linreg baseline. Actually batch2 is already running with isotropic base. Let me wait for it, but also prepare a batch 3 focused on per-axis since that's the winner. Let me add configs to sweep.py. But sweep.py is already imported by the running process , editing the file won't affect the running process (it loaded ALL dict at import). But new invocations will re-read. Let me add per-axis configs. Let me think about what to test in per-axis regime: - peraxis_reflxy (done: 0.281) - peraxis noaug - peraxis reflxy + wd variations - peraxis reflxy + swa - peraxis reflxy + ep400 - peraxis reflxy + ema decay variations (0.99, 0.995, 0.998) - peraxis reflxy + mass-weighted loss - peraxis reflxy + bs8/bs32 Let me also reconsider EMA decay. With ~8 batches/epoch and 250 epochs = 2000 updates. EMA decay 0.999 → effective window ~1000 updates = ~125 epochs. That's a long tail including early bad weights? No, it's exponential, so recent dominate. Should be OK. But maybe 0.995 (window 200 updates = 25 epochs) is better for this short training. Let me test. Let me write batch 3 configs into sweep.py.
peraxis normalization with reflection is the new best (rel=0.281, mae=0.184, **mx=0.841** , notably lower worst-case). Per-axis normalization helps the model use the thin Z-axis variation. Let me add per-axis-focused configs (EMA decay, SWA, weight decay, mass-weighting, longer training) and a CV linreg reference.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/sweep.py
old_str: names = sys.argv[1:]
new_str: pa = dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, iso_norm=False)
ALL.update({
 'pa_base': dict(pa),
 'pa_noaug': dict(base, iso_norm=False),
 'pa_wd3': dict(pa, wd=1e-3),
 'pa_wd5': dict(pa, wd=5e-4),
 'pa_ema995': dict(pa, ema=0.995),
 'pa_ema998': dict(pa, ema=0.998),
 'pa_ep400': dict(pa, epochs=400),
 'pa_ep600': dict(pa, epochs=600),
 'pa_swa': dict(pa, ema=0.0, swa_start=150),
 'pa_swa400': dict(pa, ema=0.0, epochs=400, swa_start=200),
 'pa_bs8': dict(pa, bs=8),
 'pa_bs32': dict(pa, bs=32),
 'pa_huber': dict(pa, loss='huber', beta=0.5),
 'pa_rx': dict(base, refl_x=True, iso_norm=False),
 'pa_lr15': dict(pa, lr=1.5e-3),
 'pa_minlr': dict(pa, min_lr_frac=0.05),
 'pa_ep400_wd3': dict(pa, epochs=400, wd=3e-4),
})

def linreg_cv():
    import torch
    def feats(Fm):
        ext=Fm.amax(1)-Fm.amin(1); std=Fm.std(1); mean=Fm.mean(1)
        c=Fm.mean(1,keepdim=True); r=(Fm-c).norm(dim=2)
        return torch.cat([ext,std,mean,r.mean(1,keepdim=True),r.std(1,keepdim=True),r.amax(1,keepdim=True)],1)
    N=X.shape[0]; g=torch.Generator().manual_seed(12345); perm=torch.randperm(N,generator=g)
    Ff=feats(X); preds=torch.zeros(N,1)
    for f in range(5):
        vi=perm[f::5]; mask=torch.ones(N,dtype=torch.bool); mask[vi]=False
        fm=Ff[mask].mean(0); fs=Ff[mask].std(0).clamp_min(1e-6)
        A=torch.cat([(Ff[mask]-fm)/fs, torch.ones(mask.sum(),1)],1)
        sol=torch.linalg.lstsq(A, Y[mask]).solution
        Av=torch.cat([(Ff[vi]-fm)/fs, torch.ones(len(vi),1)],1)
        preds[vi]=Av@sol
    print('linreg_cv', exp.metrics(preds,Y), flush=True)

names = sys.argv[1:]
if names and names[0]=='linreg':
    linreg_cv(); sys.exit()
output
The file /app/sweep.py has been edited successfully.
bash
cd /app && python sweep.py linreg 2>/dev/null; echo "---waiting for batch2---"; sleep 120; cat sweep_results.log | tail -6
output
linreg_cv (0.27718493342399597, 0.180913507938385, 0.6854400634765625)
---waiting for batch2---
noaug_ema            CV rel=0.2880 mae=0.1796 mx=1.0044  (92s)
refl_xy              CV rel=0.3099 mae=0.1978 mx=0.9786  (113s)
refl_xy_jit          CV rel=0.3808 mae=0.2342 mx=1.1802  (96s)
refl_x               CV rel=0.3101 mae=0.1985 mx=0.9633  (89s)
peraxis_reflxy       CV rel=0.2809 mae=0.1842 mx=0.8410  (85s)
refl_xy_wd3          CV rel=0.3151 mae=0.2009 mx=1.0631  (91s)
The linreg CV baseline: rel=0.277, mae=0.181, mx=0.685. So linreg with hand features actually has a LOWER max error (0.685) than all my PointNet configs so far (0.84-1.18)! And comparable rel L2. This is a wake-up call: my PointNet is not clearly beating a simple linear regression on engineered features in honest CV. The PointNet's weakness is the high max error. This strongly suggests the hand-crafted global features (extent, std, radial distance stats) capture most of the signal, and the PointNet is overfitting / not generalizing better. Key realization: the hand features essentially capture overall size/spread, which correlates with mass. The PointNet should be able to learn these and more, but with only ~100 samples it overfits and has high variance on the heavy outliers. I'm constrained to the PointNet architecture for the final checkpoint. But maybe I can make the PointNet learn something closer to (and better than) these robust global features. Ideas: 1. Better regularization to reduce max error. 2. The hand features include things like bounding-box extent and radial distances , these are exactly global pooling statistics. The PointNet uses max-pooling only. Max-pooling captures extents (max coordinates) but not averages/spreads well. Hmm , interesting. The architecture uses ONLY max pooling over points. Max pooling captures extremes, not density/volume. That might limit it. Wait, but I can't change architecture. The max-pool aggregation means the global feature is the max over points of each channel. The per-point MLP can transform coordinates into features whose max encodes useful stats. E.g., to get the mean of something, max-pool can't directly, but it can approximate bounding box. To encode spread, the network can compute features like |x| and max gives extent. So extents are easy. Volume/density is harder for max-pool. Given these constraints, let me focus on making the PointNet robust. The linreg max error 0.685 is the target to beat. Let me reconsider , maybe combine approaches: I could make the model's BEHAVIOR closer to robust regression by heavy regularization + EMA/SWA + augmentation that specifically helps generalization. Actually, let me reconsider the reflection augmentation result. With per-axis norm, reflection helped (0.281 vs isotropic noaug 0.288). Let me see pa_noaug result (pending in batch 3). Let me wait for batch 2 to finish then run batch 3 (per-axis focus). Batch 2 still running (wd3 just appeared). Let me wait. Actually, let me think about whether I can reduce the max error via a smarter loss. The max error comes from heavy brackets. Let me look at WHICH samples have high error and their mass. Let me also reconsider: maybe the problem is that the heavy samples (mass 2.2) are genuinely hard to extrapolate. In the FINAL model (train on all 148 labeled incl train+val+ptest), these are included, so the final test-time performance on similar heavy samples should be much better than CV suggests. The held-out test set presumably has masses in a similar range; if it doesn't contain anything heavier than 2.2 (our max), the model will have seen the full range. So CV is pessimistic about the final model specifically because of heavy-sample holdout. The RELATIVE config comparison via CV is still valid, but absolute numbers will be better for the final model. Given that, let me prioritize configs that (a) have good CV rel L2 and (b) low max error, as these indicate good generalization and robustness. Let me wait for batch2 and launch batch3.
Important reality check: **CV linreg on hand features gets rel=0.277, mae=0.181, mx=0.685** , its worst-case is much better than my PointNet's. Since the architecture uses only max-pooling (good for extents, weak for volume/density), I need strong regularization to beat this. Note CV is pessimistic for the final model since heavy samples get held out. Let me wait for batch 2, then run the per-axis-focused batch 3.
bash
cd /app && sleep 180; cat sweep_results.log | tail -6; echo "---b2 running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
refl_xy_jit          CV rel=0.3808 mae=0.2342 mx=1.1802  (96s)
refl_x               CV rel=0.3101 mae=0.1985 mx=0.9633  (89s)
peraxis_reflxy       CV rel=0.2809 mae=0.1842 mx=0.8410  (85s)
refl_xy_wd3          CV rel=0.3151 mae=0.2009 mx=1.0631  (91s)
refl_xy_swa          CV rel=0.2368 mae=0.1482 mx=0.7570  (86s)
refl_xy_ep400        CV rel=0.2471 mae=0.1593 mx=0.7850  (142s)
---b2 running?---
1
Big improvement! - refl_xy_swa: rel=0.2368, mae=0.1482, mx=0.7570 , SWA is much better than EMA! Best rel so far (0.237), and max error down to 0.757. - refl_xy_ep400: rel=0.2471 (longer training helps). SWA (Stochastic Weight Averaging) with averaging the last 100 epochs (swa_start=150 of 250) is clearly superior to EMA 0.999. This makes sense , SWA finds flatter minima, better generalization. So the winning combo is SWA + per-axis norm + reflection. refl_xy_swa used isotropic norm though. Let me combine SWA with per-axis norm. Batch 3 has pa_swa and pa_swa400. Let me wait for batch 2's remaining (bs32, huber, msel1) and launch batch 3. Actually, let me launch batch 3 now in parallel? No , GPU contention would slow both and risk timeouts. Let me wait for batch 2 to finish first. Two configs left (bs32, huber, msel1 , actually 3 left). Let me wait. Actually batch2 list was: refl_xy_wd3 refl_xy_swa refl_xy_ep400 refl_xy_bs32 refl_xy_huber refl_xy_msel1. So 3 done (wd3, swa, ep400), 3 left (bs32, huber, msel1). Let me wait ~150s. Let me think about SWA more. SWA averages weights across epochs in the high-LR-ish region. My implementation averages model.state_dict() every epoch from swa_start, then recomputes BN stats. The LR schedule is cosine to ~0 by end. For SWA, a common approach is constant or cyclic LR during averaging. My cosine schedule means later epochs have tiny LR → weights barely move → SWA ≈ final weights. Hmm, but it still helped a lot. Maybe I should use a higher min_lr during SWA phase so the weights explore more. Let me test pa_swa with min_lr_frac. Let me refine: for SWA, use min_lr_frac ~0.1-0.3 so LR stays moderate during averaging phase, encouraging exploration of the loss basin. Let me add those configs. Let me wait for batch2 then run a refined batch 3.
**SWA is a big win**: refl_xy_swa gives rel=0.237, mae=0.148, mx=0.757 , beating linreg on rel/mae and close on max. SWA finds flatter, better-generalizing minima than EMA. Let me wait for batch 2 to finish, then combine SWA with per-axis norm and tune the SWA LR phase.
bash
cd /app && sleep 170; cat sweep_results.log | tail -4; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
refl_xy_swa          CV rel=0.2368 mae=0.1482 mx=0.7570  (86s)
refl_xy_ep400        CV rel=0.2471 mae=0.1593 mx=0.7850  (142s)
refl_xy_bs32         CV rel=0.3573 mae=0.2251 mx=1.1840  (94s)
refl_xy_huber        CV rel=0.3267 mae=0.2039 mx=1.1122  (90s)
---running?---
1
- refl_xy_bs32: 0.357 (worse, bigger batch hurts with EMA) - refl_xy_huber: 0.327 (worse, as expected huber hurts max error and rel) Waiting for msel1. SWA remains the clear winner. Let me add SWA-focused configs to sweep and tune. Let me define batch 3 to combine SWA with per-axis norm and various SWA LR settings. I need to update sweep.py with SWA + per-axis configs and SWA LR phase tuning. Let me add them. The min_lr_frac applies to the cosine floor. For SWA, I want the LR during the averaging phase to be moderate. Let me add a constant-LR-during-SWA option to the trainer. Actually, let me add a simpler approach: use min_lr_frac so LR doesn't decay to 0, combined with SWA. Let me add SWA configs: - sa_pa_swa: per-axis + SWA (swa_start 150, ep 250) - sa_pa_swa_minlr: per-axis + SWA + min_lr_frac 0.1 - variants with swa_start, epochs, min_lr. Let me also implement a cyclic/constant LR during SWA in the trainer for proper SWA. Let me add a 'swa_lr_frac' that sets a constant LR from swa_start. Let me edit exp.py's lr_at to support constant LR after swa_start.
SWA dominates; larger batch and Huber hurt. Let me add a proper SWA LR phase (constant moderate LR during averaging) and combine SWA with per-axis normalization.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/exp.py
old_str:     def lr_at(ep):
        if ep < warm: return (ep+1)/warm
        p=(ep-warm)/max(1,(epochs-warm)); return cfg.get('min_lr_frac',0.0)+(1-cfg.get('min_lr_frac',0.0))*0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*p))
new_str:     swa_start0=cfg.get('swa_start', epochs+1)
    swa_lr_frac=cfg.get('swa_lr_frac', None)
    def lr_at(ep):
        if ep < warm: return (ep+1)/warm
        if swa_lr_frac is not None and ep>=swa_start0:
            return swa_lr_frac
        end = swa_start0 if (swa_lr_frac is not None and swa_start0<=epochs) else epochs
        p=(ep-warm)/max(1,(end-warm)); p=min(p,1.0)
        return cfg.get('min_lr_frac',0.0)+(1-cfg.get('min_lr_frac',0.0))*0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*p))
output
The file /app/exp.py has been edited successfully.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/sweep.py
old_str: def linreg_cv():
new_str: sw = dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, iso_norm=False, ema=0.0, swa_start=150)
ALL.update({
 'sw_pa': dict(sw),
 'sw_pa_iso': dict(sw, iso_norm=True),
 'sw_pa_noref': dict(base, iso_norm=False, ema=0.0, swa_start=150),
 'sw_pa_rx': dict(base, refl_x=True, iso_norm=False, ema=0.0, swa_start=150),
 'sw_lr01': dict(sw, swa_lr_frac=0.1),
 'sw_lr05': dict(sw, swa_lr_frac=0.05),
 'sw_lr20': dict(sw, swa_lr_frac=0.2),
 'sw_ep400_s200': dict(sw, epochs=400, swa_start=200),
 'sw_ep400_s200_lr05': dict(sw, epochs=400, swa_start=200, swa_lr_frac=0.05),
 'sw_ep600_s300_lr05': dict(sw, epochs=600, swa_start=300, swa_lr_frac=0.05),
 'sw_s100': dict(sw, swa_start=100),
 'sw_s180': dict(sw, swa_start=180),
 'sw_wd3': dict(sw, wd=3e-4),
 'sw_wd5': dict(sw, wd=5e-4),
 'sw_bnp10': dict(sw, swa_bn_passes=10),
 'sw_lr05_wd3': dict(sw, swa_lr_frac=0.05, wd=3e-4),
 'sw_ep400_s250_lr03': dict(sw, epochs=400, swa_start=250, swa_lr_frac=0.03),
})

def linreg_cv():
output
The file /app/sweep.py has been edited successfully.
bash
cd /app && sleep 20; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l; echo "launching batch3a"; nohup python sweep.py sw_pa sw_pa_iso sw_pa_noref sw_pa_rx sw_lr01 sw_lr05 > sweep3a.out 2>&1 &
echo "pid $!"
output
1
launching batch3a
pid 374
Wait, there's still a process running (msel1 from batch2). Launching batch3a now means two processes share the GPU. That could slow things and risk timeout. But the previous batch is almost done (just msel1 left). Let me check , it might cause contention but H100 is big. Let me monitor. Actually I launched it already. Let me just wait and poll. Let me wait ~150s.
bash
cd /app && sleep 200; echo "=== results so far ==="; cat sweep_results.log | tail -8; echo "---running procs---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
=== results so far ===
refl_xy_wd3          CV rel=0.3151 mae=0.2009 mx=1.0631  (91s)
refl_xy_swa          CV rel=0.2368 mae=0.1482 mx=0.7570  (86s)
refl_xy_ep400        CV rel=0.2471 mae=0.1593 mx=0.7850  (142s)
refl_xy_bs32         CV rel=0.3573 mae=0.2251 mx=1.1840  (94s)
refl_xy_huber        CV rel=0.3267 mae=0.2039 mx=1.1122  (90s)
refl_xy_msel1        CV rel=0.3235 mae=0.2050 mx=1.0443  (101s)
sw_pa                CV rel=0.2532 mae=0.1573 mx=0.8148  (102s)
sw_pa_iso            CV rel=0.2368 mae=0.1482 mx=0.7570  (83s)
---running procs---
1
Interesting: - sw_pa (per-axis + SWA): 0.2532 , slightly worse than isotropic! - sw_pa_iso (isotropic + SWA): 0.2368 (identical to refl_xy_swa, as expected , same config). So with SWA, isotropic normalization is better than per-axis (0.237 vs 0.253). Earlier with EMA, per-axis was better. So normalization choice interacts with averaging method. With SWA, isotropic wins. So current best: isotropic + reflxy + SWA = 0.2368. Let me wait for the rest of batch3a (sw_pa_noref, sw_pa_rx, sw_lr01, sw_lr05). These are per-axis variants though. Since isotropic is better, I should test isotropic + SWA + LR variations. Let me prepare batch3b with isotropic-based SWA configs and LR tuning. Let me redefine the sweep 'sw' base to be isotropic since that's winning. Let me add iso SWA configs. Actually my 'sw' base is per-axis (iso_norm=False). Let me add isotropic SWA LR configs as new names. Let me add them and run batch 3b. Wait , let me reconsider. Let me make sure I have the LR-phase SWA tested on isotropic. Let me add: - swi (isotropic SWA base, = refl_xy_swa, baseline) - swi_lr05, swi_lr01, swi_lr20 (constant SWA LR) - swi_ep400_s200, swi_ep400_s200_lr05 - swi_s100, swi_s180 - swi_wd3, swi_wd5 - swi_bnp10 Let me also reconsider whether reflection helps with SWA+isotropic. refl_xy_swa=0.2368 includes refl. Let me test no-reflection isotropic SWA too. Let me add these and launch. But the current batch3a is still running with per-axis lr configs (sw_lr01, sw_lr05 are per-axis). That's somewhat wasted but let me see them. Let me wait for batch3a to finish then launch batch3b (isotropic). Let me prepare batch3b configs now.
With SWA, **isotropic normalization wins** (0.237 vs per-axis 0.253) , the normalization/averaging interaction flipped. Current best: isotropic + reflxy + SWA = 0.237. Let me add isotropic SWA configs with LR-phase and schedule tuning.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/sweep.py
old_str: def linreg_cv():
new_str: swi = dict(base, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, iso_norm=True, ema=0.0, swa_start=150)
ALL.update({
 'swi': dict(swi),
 'swi_noref': dict(base, iso_norm=True, ema=0.0, swa_start=150),
 'swi_lr05': dict(swi, swa_lr_frac=0.05),
 'swi_lr10': dict(swi, swa_lr_frac=0.1),
 'swi_lr20': dict(swi, swa_lr_frac=0.2),
 'swi_lr03': dict(swi, swa_lr_frac=0.03),
 'swi_ep400_s200': dict(swi, epochs=400, swa_start=200),
 'swi_ep400_s200_lr05': dict(swi, epochs=400, swa_start=200, swa_lr_frac=0.05),
 'swi_ep600_s300_lr05': dict(swi, epochs=600, swa_start=300, swa_lr_frac=0.05),
 'swi_ep400_s250_lr03': dict(swi, epochs=400, swa_start=250, swa_lr_frac=0.03),
 'swi_s100': dict(swi, swa_start=100),
 'swi_s180': dict(swi, swa_start=180),
 'swi_s200': dict(swi, swa_start=200),
 'swi_wd3': dict(swi, wd=3e-4),
 'swi_wd5': dict(swi, wd=5e-4),
 'swi_wd0': dict(swi, wd=0.0),
 'swi_bnp10': dict(swi, swa_bn_passes=10),
 'swi_lr05_wd3': dict(swi, swa_lr_frac=0.05, wd=3e-4),
 'swi_lr05_s100': dict(swi, swa_lr_frac=0.05, swa_start=100),
 'swi_rx': dict(base, refl_x=True, iso_norm=True, ema=0.0, swa_start=150),
})

def linreg_cv():
output
The file /app/sweep.py has been edited successfully.
bash
cd /app && sleep 120; cat sweep_results.log | tail -5; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
refl_xy_huber        CV rel=0.3267 mae=0.2039 mx=1.1122  (90s)
refl_xy_msel1        CV rel=0.3235 mae=0.2050 mx=1.0443  (101s)
sw_pa                CV rel=0.2532 mae=0.1573 mx=0.8148  (102s)
sw_pa_iso            CV rel=0.2368 mae=0.1482 mx=0.7570  (83s)
sw_pa_noref          CV rel=0.2407 mae=0.1501 mx=0.6460  (102s)
---running?---
1
sw_pa_noref (per-axis, no reflection, SWA): rel=0.2407, mae=0.1501, mx=0.6460 , the max error is the LOWEST yet (0.646, beating linreg's 0.685)! And rel 0.2407 is close to best. So no-reflection per-axis SWA has the best max error. Interesting. So reflection might be adding a bit of noise. Let me note: sw_pa (per-axis refl) = 0.253 mx 0.815, sw_pa_noref (per-axis no refl) = 0.241 mx 0.646. So for per-axis, no-reflection is better. Hmm, but for isotropic, refl_xy_swa=0.2368 (with refl). I should test isotropic no-refl SWA (swi_noref in batch3b). Let me wait for batch3a to finish (sw_pa_rx, sw_lr01, sw_lr05 remaining) then launch batch3b. Actually only 1 process running. Let me check which configs remain in batch3a: sw_pa sw_pa_iso sw_pa_noref sw_pa_rx sw_lr01 sw_lr05. Done: sw_pa, sw_pa_iso, sw_pa_noref. Remaining: sw_pa_rx, sw_lr01, sw_lr05. ~3 more * ~95s = ~285s. Let me wait then launch batch3b. Let me wait ~200s.
`sw_pa_noref` (per-axis, no reflection, SWA) hits **mx=0.646** , the lowest worst-case yet, beating linreg (0.685), with rel=0.241. Let me wait for batch 3a to finish then launch the isotropic SWA batch.
bash
cd /app && sleep 230; cat sweep_results.log | tail -4; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
sw_pa_iso            CV rel=0.2368 mae=0.1482 mx=0.7570  (83s)
sw_pa_noref          CV rel=0.2407 mae=0.1501 mx=0.6460  (102s)
sw_pa_rx             CV rel=0.2588 mae=0.1612 mx=0.8241  (103s)
sw_lr01              CV rel=0.2585 mae=0.1610 mx=0.7524  (95s)
---running?---
1
Batch3a almost done (sw_lr05 left). sw_lr01 (per-axis, SWA, constant LR 0.1 during averaging): 0.2585 , worse than cosine-decay SWA. So constant moderate LR during SWA isn't better here. Let me wait for sw_lr05 then launch batch3b (isotropic). Let me wait ~120s.
bash
cd /app && sleep 110; tail -2 sweep_results.log; n=$(ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l); echo "running=$n"
if [ "$n" -eq 0 ]; then nohup python sweep.py swi swi_noref swi_lr05 swi_ep400_s200 swi_s200 swi_wd3 > sweep3b.out 2>&1 & echo "launched batch3b pid $!"; fi
output
sw_lr01              CV rel=0.2585 mae=0.1610 mx=0.7524  (95s)
sw_lr05              CV rel=0.2594 mae=0.1619 mx=0.7349  (108s)
running=0
launched batch3b pid 446
Batch3a done. Constant SWA LR (0.05, 0.1) gave ~0.259, worse than cosine-decay-then-average (0.237-0.241). So the cosine decay to near-zero before/during averaging works better here. Good to know. Batch3b launched: swi swi_noref swi_lr05 swi_ep400_s200 swi_s200 swi_wd3. Let me reflect on strategy while waiting. Current best configs: - refl_xy_swa (=sw_pa_iso=swi): iso+refl+SWA, rel 0.2368, mae 0.1482, mx 0.757 - sw_pa_noref: per-axis+noref+SWA, rel 0.2407, mae 0.1501, mx 0.646 The tradeoff: isotropic+refl has best rel/mae but higher max; per-axis+noref has best max but slightly worse rel. Given all three metrics matter and I shouldn't trade one off, I want a config balancing all. Let me consider averaging both normalizations? No, single model. Let me think about whether I can get the best of both. The max error is the concern. Let me consider: 1. An ensemble via SWA already helps. 2. Maybe combining reflection with per-axis but more SWA epochs. Actually, a cleaner idea to reduce both rel and max: train LONGER with SWA over a longer averaging window, and average more diverse weights. Let me see batch3b's ep400 result. Also, I realize I should consider seed averaging for the FINAL model differently. The final model is ONE network. But I could do "SWA across multiple independent runs"? No , can't average across independent inits (permutation problem). SWA only works along a single trajectory. But here's a thought: I could run a single long training with multiple cosine cycles (cyclic LR / warm restarts) and SWA-average the weights at the end of each cycle. This gives diverse-but-connected weights to average, which is the classic "SWA with cyclic LR" or "Fast Geometric Ensembling". This could improve generalization more. Let me consider testing a cyclic schedule. Let me also reconsider: the BN recomputation for SWA. I recompute BN stats with augmentation on. For the final eval, test data has no augmentation. I should recompute BN stats WITHOUT augmentation (or with, but test is clean). Actually, for SWA BN recomputation, we want BN running stats to match the distribution seen at inference (clean, normalized data). Currently I pass augmented data through. Let me reconsider , I should recompute BN with clean (non-augmented) training data to match test distribution. But reflection keeps distribution similar. Jitter would differ. Since I'm not using jitter, it's fine-ish. But to be safe, for the FINAL model I'll recompute BN on clean data. Let me note that. Actually, let me test it. Let me wait for batch3b. Let me think about the cyclic SWA idea and implement it as an option. In exp.py, I could add a 'cyclic' schedule: after an initial cosine decay, do cycles. Let me add a simpler "SWA snapshot every N epochs with cosine restarts". Actually, let me keep it simpler and robust. The current SWA (cosine decay + average last ~100 epochs) already works well. Let me focus on: - confirming best normalization/refl with SWA (batch3b) - tuning swa_start and epochs - then building final model with seed-robust check. Let me wait for batch3b results.
Constant LR during SWA is worse (~0.259) than cosine-decay-then-average (~0.237). Good , the cosine-to-low-LR approach is better. Now batch 3b tests isotropic SWA variants. Let me also add a cyclic (warm-restart) SWA option since averaging diverse-but-connected snapshots often generalizes better.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/exp.py
old_str:     swa_start0=cfg.get('swa_start', epochs+1)
    swa_lr_frac=cfg.get('swa_lr_frac', None)
    def lr_at(ep):
        if ep < warm: return (ep+1)/warm
        if swa_lr_frac is not None and ep>=swa_start0:
            return swa_lr_frac
        end = swa_start0 if (swa_lr_frac is not None and swa_start0<=epochs) else epochs
        p=(ep-warm)/max(1,(end-warm)); p=min(p,1.0)
        return cfg.get('min_lr_frac',0.0)+(1-cfg.get('min_lr_frac',0.0))*0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*p))
new_str:     swa_start0=cfg.get('swa_start', epochs+1)
    swa_lr_frac=cfg.get('swa_lr_frac', None)
    cyc=cfg.get('cyc_len', 0)  # cyclic cosine restart length (epochs) after swa_start
    cyc_hi=cfg.get('cyc_hi', 0.5); cyc_lo=cfg.get('cyc_lo', 0.0)
    def lr_at(ep):
        if ep < warm: return (ep+1)/warm
        if cyc>0 and ep>=swa_start0:
            t=((ep-swa_start0)%cyc)/cyc
            return cyc_lo+(cyc_hi-cyc_lo)*0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*t))
        if swa_lr_frac is not None and ep>=swa_start0:
            return swa_lr_frac
        end = swa_start0 if ((swa_lr_frac is not None or cyc>0) and swa_start0<=epochs) else epochs
        p=(ep-warm)/max(1,(end-warm)); p=min(p,1.0)
        return cfg.get('min_lr_frac',0.0)+(1-cfg.get('min_lr_frac',0.0))*0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*p))
output
The file /app/exp.py has been edited successfully.
I added cyclic LR. But I also need to modify the SWA snapshot logic to snapshot at the END of each cycle (at LR minimum) rather than every epoch, for proper cyclic SWA. Currently it averages every epoch from swa_start. For cyclic, averaging at cycle ends is standard (FGE). But averaging every epoch during cycles also works (SWA variant). Let me make snapshot at cycle end when cyc>0. Let me update the SWA snapshot section.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/exp.py
old_str:         if ep>=swa_start:
            with torch.no_grad():
                if swa_state is None:
new_str:         snap = ep>=swa_start
        if cyc>0 and ep>=swa_start0:
            snap = (((ep-swa_start0)%cyc)==cyc-1)  # snapshot at end of each cycle (LR min)
        if snap:
            with torch.no_grad():
                if swa_state is None:
output
The file /app/exp.py has been edited successfully.
bash
cd /app && sleep 120; cat sweep_results.log | tail -4; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
sw_pa_rx             CV rel=0.2588 mae=0.1612 mx=0.8241  (103s)
sw_lr01              CV rel=0.2585 mae=0.1610 mx=0.7524  (95s)
sw_lr05              CV rel=0.2594 mae=0.1619 mx=0.7349  (108s)
swi                  CV rel=0.2368 mae=0.1482 mx=0.7570  (78s)
---running?---
1
swi confirmed at 0.2368 (isotropic + refl + SWA, swa_start 150). Let me wait for the rest of batch3b: swi_noref, swi_lr05, swi_ep400_s200, swi_s200, swi_wd3. Let me add cyclic SWA configs to the sweep for batch 4. Let me define them now.
Let me add cyclic-SWA and extended configs for the next batch while 3b runs.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/sweep.py
old_str: def linreg_cv():
new_str: ALL.update({
 'cyc_i_30': dict(swi, epochs=450, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4),
 'cyc_i_30b': dict(swi, epochs=450, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.25),
 'cyc_i_50': dict(swi, epochs=550, swa_start=150, cyc_len=50, cyc_hi=0.4),
 'cyc_pa_30': dict(base, iso_norm=False, ema=0.0, epochs=450, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4),
 'cyc_i_noref_30': dict(base, iso_norm=True, ema=0.0, epochs=450, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4),
 'swi_long': dict(swi, epochs=500, swa_start=250),
 'swi_long_wd3': dict(swi, epochs=500, swa_start=250, wd=3e-4),
 'swi_ep300_s150': dict(swi, epochs=300, swa_start=150),
 'swi_noref_s200': dict(base, iso_norm=True, ema=0.0, swa_start=200),
 'swi_noref_long': dict(base, iso_norm=True, ema=0.0, epochs=500, swa_start=250),
})

def linreg_cv():
output
The file /app/sweep.py has been edited successfully.
bash
cd /app && sleep 200; cat sweep_results.log | tail -6; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
sw_pa_rx             CV rel=0.2588 mae=0.1612 mx=0.8241  (103s)
sw_lr01              CV rel=0.2585 mae=0.1610 mx=0.7524  (95s)
sw_lr05              CV rel=0.2594 mae=0.1619 mx=0.7349  (108s)
swi                  CV rel=0.2368 mae=0.1482 mx=0.7570  (78s)
swi_noref            CV rel=0.2587 mae=0.1623 mx=0.7661  (75s)
swi_lr05             CV rel=0.2404 mae=0.1504 mx=0.7511  (104s)
---running?---
1
- swi_noref (isotropic, no refl, SWA): 0.2587 , worse than swi with refl (0.2368). So for isotropic, reflection HELPS. (Opposite of per-axis where noref was better.) - swi_lr05 (isotropic refl SWA + constant LR 0.05 during SWA): 0.2404 , slightly worse than swi (0.2368). So swi (isotropic + refl_xy + SWA, cosine decay, swa_start 150, 250 epochs) remains best at 0.2368. Let me wait for remaining batch3b (swi_ep400_s200, swi_s200, swi_wd3) then launch batch 4 (cyclic + long). The pattern so far: isotropic + reflection + SWA with cosine decay is best for rel/mae. Best max error was per-axis no-refl (0.646). Let me think about combining: what if isotropic + refl + SWA + longer averaging reduces max too? swi has mx 0.757. Let me see if ep400_s200 or long helps max. Let me wait.
For isotropic norm, reflection **helps** (0.237 vs 0.259) , opposite of per-axis. swi (isotropic+refl+SWA) stays best at 0.237. Let me wait for the rest of 3b, then launch the cyclic/long-SWA batch.
bash
cd /app && sleep 200; tail -3 sweep_results.log; n=$(ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l); echo "running=$n"
if [ "$n" -eq 0 ]; then nohup python sweep.py cyc_i_30 cyc_i_30b swi_long swi_ep300_s150 swi_long_wd3 cyc_i_noref_30 > sweep4.out 2>&1 & echo "launched batch4 pid $!"; fi
output
swi_lr05             CV rel=0.2404 mae=0.1504 mx=0.7511  (104s)
swi_ep400_s200       CV rel=0.2357 mae=0.1441 mx=0.7660  (159s)
swi_s200             CV rel=0.2361 mae=0.1478 mx=0.7502  (104s)
running=1
- swi_ep400_s200: rel=0.2357, mae=0.1441, mx=0.766 , marginally best rel/mae. Longer training (400 ep, SWA from 200) helps a touch. - swi_s200: 0.2361 , similar. So we're plateauing around rel 0.235-0.237. The differences are within noise now (2 seeds). Batch3b last one (swi_wd3) still running, then batch4 will launch. Wait , n=1 means still running, so batch4 not launched yet (my condition needs n==0). Let me wait for swi_wd3 then launch batch4. Let me reconsider the bigger picture. I'm plateauing at rel ~0.235 in CV. The final model (trained on all data) should do better since heavy samples included. But I want to make sure I'm not missing a bigger win. Let me reconsider the high max-error samples. Let me analyze which samples are hardest and whether there's a systematic issue (e.g., the heaviest bracket). Let me do that analysis in parallel-ish (after batch completes, to avoid GPU contention... actually analysis of errors needs a trained model). Let me also reconsider: the CV uses 2 seeds. The noise between configs at 0.235-0.241 is within seed variance probably. Let me increase to more seeds for the FINAL config comparison to pick robustly. But that's expensive. Let me think about what else could help: 1. Increasing number of SWA snapshots / cyclic. 2. Test-time augmentation (TTA): at inference, average predictions over reflections (x, y) and maybe multiple point subsamples. This is allowed! The inference applies model(normalize(x)). Wait , can I do TTA? The grader calls my model's forward with the normalized input. I don't control the inference loop. Let me re-read the task. "The model must consume a [B, 2048, 3] tensor and produce a [B, 1] output." and "The same normalization is applied at inference time". So the grader does: pred = model((x - feat_mean)/feat_std) * label_std + label_mean. I cannot inject TTA into the grader's loop because it calls model.forward directly with a single normalized input. Unless I bake TTA INTO the forward pass of the model. But the model is the fixed PointNetRegressor class , I can't modify its forward. Hmm. Wait , actually, could I override forward via the state_dict? No. The architecture is fixed; forward is fixed. So no TTA unless within forward. So TTA is out. But wait , reflection TTA could be baked in if I could modify forward, but I can't. So skip. 2. Could I make the model inherently reflection-invariant by training with reflection aug (already doing). That bakes some TTA-like robustness into weights. Good. 3. What about the input normalization being used to my advantage? feat_mean/feat_std are applied as (x-mean)/std. This is a fixed affine. I choose them. For isotropic, I use global std. That's fine. Let me reconsider the label normalization choice. I use train label mean/std. For the final model on all data, I'll use all-data mean/std. Fine. Let me now think about whether a fundamentally different training target helps. What if I train the model to predict mass but with sample weighting to reduce max error? Since rel L2 and max are dominated by heavy samples, and those are the hardest, weighting them more in training could help the final model predict them better (reducing max error on test if test has heavy samples). But it could also overfit. In CV, heavy samples are held out so weighting won't directly help CV max. Let me think... Actually, for the final deliverable, what matters is test performance. If test distribution ~ train distribution (masses 0.2-2.2), then training on all data with the heavy samples included should handle them. The CV max error of 0.646-0.76 comes from extrapolating to held-out heavy samples. At test, if the test heavy samples are "interpolated" (similar heavy samples in training), error will be lower. So I think the final model will have lower max error than CV suggests. Good. Let me focus on locking in the best config and building a robust final model. Current best: swi / swi_ep400_s200. Let me run batch4 (cyclic + long) to see if …[truncated]
We're plateauing around rel≈0.235 (swi_ep400_s200: rel=0.2357, mae=0.1441). Note: I can't do test-time augmentation since the grader calls the fixed `forward` directly , so reflection-robustness must be baked into the weights (which the augmentation does). Let me check cyclic SWA and longer runs.
bash
cd /app && sleep 60; tail -2 sweep_results.log; n=$(ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l); echo "running=$n"
if [ "$n" -eq 0 ]; then nohup python sweep.py cyc_i_30 cyc_i_30b swi_long swi_ep300_s150 swi_long_wd3 cyc_i_noref_30 > sweep4.out 2>&1 & echo "launched batch4 pid $!"; fi
output
swi_s200             CV rel=0.2361 mae=0.1478 mx=0.7502  (104s)
swi_wd3              CV rel=0.2403 mae=0.1481 mx=0.7253  (106s)
running=0
launched batch4 pid 542
swi_wd3 (wd 3e-4): 0.2403, mx 0.7253. Slightly higher wd gives slightly lower max but slightly higher rel. Batch4 launched (cyclic + long configs). Let me wait. Meanwhile, let me analyze the error structure to understand the hard samples. I'll do this after batch4 to avoid GPU contention, or I can do a quick CPU-free analysis. Actually let me just wait and then analyze. Let me wait ~230s for batch4 (6 configs, some 450-500 epochs → longer). Actually, while waiting, let me plan the final model construction: 1. Pick best config from CV. 2. Train final model on ALL labeled data (train+val+public_test = 148 samples) with that config. But wait , should I include public_test? The real held-out test is separate. Using public_test for training gives more data and is legitimate (it's labeled data I have). The grader evaluates on a separate held-out set. So yes, use all 148. But I lose public_test as a sanity check. That's OK; I've used CV for validation. Actually, a concern: my CV used only train+val (132). Let me keep public_test separate as a final sanity check on the chosen config, THEN for the final model train on all 148. Or train on 132 and check on 16 public_test, and ALSO produce an all-148 model. The deliverable is one model. I'll train on all available labeled data (148) for maximum data, using the config validated by CV. 3. For robustness, since a single run has seed variance, I could train the final model with a config that's stable. But I can only ship one model. I'll pick a good seed via... I can't peek at test. I'll just train with a fixed seed and the full SWA averaging (which reduces variance). Actually, here's a nice idea to reduce variance in the SINGLE deliverable: SWA already averages many snapshots along one trajectory. I could extend averaging to cover more epochs / cyclic snapshots to further reduce variance. This is the best I can do for a single checkpoint. Let me also double check: when I train the final model on ALL 148 samples, there's no held-out set to recompute... SWA BN recomputation uses training data (all 148) , fine. Let me wait for batch4. Let me reconsider one more potential improvement: the loss. All my configs use MSE on standardized labels. Given rel L2 is the primary metric and equals RMSE/const, MSE is right. For max error, MSE already penalizes large errors. For MAE, MSE is slightly suboptimal but close. I tested huber (worse) and mse_l1 (worse). So MSE stays. Let me wait and see batch4 results.
swi_wd3 gives the lowest max yet among isotropic (0.725) at a tiny rel cost. Batch 4 (cyclic + long SWA) is running. Let me wait, then analyze which samples drive the worst-case error.
bash
cd /app && sleep 250; cat sweep_results.log | tail -6; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
swi_noref            CV rel=0.2587 mae=0.1623 mx=0.7661  (75s)
swi_lr05             CV rel=0.2404 mae=0.1504 mx=0.7511  (104s)
swi_ep400_s200       CV rel=0.2357 mae=0.1441 mx=0.7660  (159s)
swi_s200             CV rel=0.2361 mae=0.1478 mx=0.7502  (104s)
swi_wd3              CV rel=0.2403 mae=0.1481 mx=0.7253  (106s)
cyc_i_30             CV rel=0.2331 mae=0.1431 mx=0.7450  (163s)
---running?---
1
cyc_i_30 (cyclic SWA, 450 epochs, swa_start 150, cycle 30, cyc_hi 0.4): rel=0.2331, mae=0.1431, mx=0.745 , new best rel and mae! Cyclic SWA helps a bit. Let me wait for the rest of batch4 (cyc_i_30b, swi_long, swi_ep300_s150, swi_long_wd3, cyc_i_noref_30). Cyclic SWA with warm restarts averages more diverse snapshots → better generalization. Let me explore this direction more (cycle length, cyc_hi, more cycles). Let me wait for batch4 to finish, then do error analysis and a refined cyclic sweep. Let me wait ~230s.
Cyclic SWA (`cyc_i_30`) gives a new best: rel=0.2331, mae=0.1431. Warm-restart averaging of diverse snapshots helps. Let me wait for the rest of batch 4.
bash
cd /app && sleep 240; cat sweep_results.log | tail -5; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
swi_ep400_s200       CV rel=0.2357 mae=0.1441 mx=0.7660  (159s)
swi_s200             CV rel=0.2361 mae=0.1478 mx=0.7502  (104s)
swi_wd3              CV rel=0.2403 mae=0.1481 mx=0.7253  (106s)
cyc_i_30             CV rel=0.2331 mae=0.1431 mx=0.7450  (163s)
cyc_i_30b            CV rel=0.2341 mae=0.1443 mx=0.7436  (171s)
---running?---
1
cyc_i_30b (cyc_hi 0.25): rel=0.2341, mae=0.1443, mx=0.7436. Similar to cyc_i_30. cyc_hi 0.4 slightly better rel. Waiting for swi_long, swi_ep300_s150, swi_long_wd3, cyc_i_noref_30. Let me prepare a refined cyclic batch and error analysis. Let me define more cyclic configs focusing on the best direction. And I want to run multi-seed validation on the top 2-3 configs to pick robustly. Let me add configs: - cyc with more seeds eval - cyc_i_40, cyc variations, cyc with wd3, cyc with longer total And a 4-seed eval of the top config to reduce noise. Let me add a way to run cv_eval with more seeds. I'll add configs and also add a '4seed' suffix handling. Actually let me just add a separate driver for multi-seed on specific configs. Let me extend sweep.py to accept a seeds argument via env. Let me modify sweep to read SEEDS env var.
cyclic SWA variants cluster around rel 0.233. Let me make seed count configurable (to pick the final config robustly over more seeds) and add refined cyclic configs.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/sweep.py
old_str: names = sys.argv[1:]
if names and names[0]=='linreg':
new_str: import os
SEEDS = tuple(int(s) for s in os.environ.get('SEEDS','0,1').split(','))
ALL.update({
 'cyc_i_40': dict(swi, epochs=470, swa_start=150, cyc_len=40, cyc_hi=0.4),
 'cyc_i_25': dict(swi, epochs=450, swa_start=150, cyc_len=25, cyc_hi=0.4),
 'cyc_i_30_hi5': dict(swi, epochs=450, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.5),
 'cyc_i_30_wd3': dict(swi, epochs=450, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4, wd=3e-4),
 'cyc_i_30_long': dict(swi, epochs=600, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4),
 'cyc_i_30_s120': dict(swi, epochs=450, swa_start=120, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4),
 'cyc_i_30_bnp10': dict(swi, epochs=450, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4, swa_bn_passes=10),
})
names = sys.argv[1:]
if names and names[0]=='linreg':
output
The file /app/sweep.py has been edited successfully.
bash
cd /app && sed -i 's/rel,mae,mx = exp.cv_eval(c, X, Y, k=5, seeds=(0,1))/rel,mae,mx = exp.cv_eval(c, X, Y, k=5, seeds=SEEDS)/' sweep.py
grep -n "seeds=SEEDS" sweep.py
output
137:    rel,mae,mx = exp.cv_eval(c, X, Y, k=5, seeds=SEEDS)
bash
cd /app && sleep 30; tail -2 sweep_results.log; n=$(ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l); echo "running=$n"
if [ "$n" -eq 0 ]; then nohup python sweep.py cyc_i_40 cyc_i_25 cyc_i_30_hi5 cyc_i_30_wd3 cyc_i_30_s120 cyc_i_30_long > sweep5.out 2>&1 & echo "launched batch5 pid $!"; fi
output
cyc_i_30b            CV rel=0.2341 mae=0.1443 mx=0.7436  (171s)
swi_long             CV rel=0.2451 mae=0.1498 mx=0.8105  (209s)
running=1
swi_long (500 ep, swa_start 250, plain SWA no cyclic): 0.2451 , worse than cyclic. So cyclic SWA > plain long SWA. Batch4 still running (swi_ep300_s150, swi_long_wd3, cyc_i_noref_30 remaining). n=1 so batch5 not launched. Let me wait for batch4 to finish. While waiting, let me do the error analysis to understand hard samples. But GPU is busy. I'll do a lightweight CPU analysis of label distribution vs a quick model. Actually let me wait. Let me reconsider time budget. I've spent a lot of wall-clock. Let me be efficient: after batch5, I'll pick the best config, run a multi-seed robustness check on top 2, then build the final model. Let me make sure I have the final model building script ready. Let me write the final training script now (train on all labeled data with chosen config, save checkpoint in required format). I'll parameterize it so I can plug in the winning config. Key points for final script: - Load train+val+public_test, pool all (148 samples). - Compute feat_mean (global mean over all points/samples), feat_std (isotropic: global std scalar repeated 3x). - label_mean, label_std from all labels. - Train with chosen config (cyclic SWA). - Recompute BN stats on CLEAN data (no aug) for inference match , actually let me test whether clean vs aug BN matters. For now, I'll recompute BN on clean normalized training data (matches test). - Save state_dict + feat_mean/std + label_mean/std in required squeezed shapes. - Validate loadability: reload into build_model, run forward on a [B,2048,3] tensor, de-standardize, compare. Let me write it. I'll make the config a dict at top. Let me also reconsider BN recomputation data. For the final model trained on ALL data, to recompute BN I pass training data through. Should I augment? Test data is clean (canonical, no jitter). My augmentations are reflections only (no jitter/scale). Reflections keep distribution similar. To best match test, recompute BN on clean (non-reflected) normalized training data. I'll do that (augment off during BN recomputation). Let me add a flag `swa_bn_clean`. Let me update exp.py train_predict to support swa_bn_clean (recompute BN without augmentation). Actually, for CV eval consistency I used augmented BN. The difference is small. For the final model I'll use clean BN. Let me add the option and default clean for final. But to keep CV comparisons valid, let me not change default. Let me add `swa_bn_clean` option.
Cyclic SWA beats plain long SWA (0.245). Let me add a clean-data BN-recompute option (test data is un-augmented, so matching BN stats to clean data is more correct) and write the final training script while batch 4 finishes.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/exp.py
old_str:             for _ in range(cfg.get('swa_bn_passes',5)):
                perm=torch.randperm(n,device=DEV)
                for s in range(0,n,bs):
                    idx=perm[s:s+bs]; xb=augment(trx_d[idx],cfg); final((xb-fm_d)/fs_d)
new_str:             bn_clean=cfg.get('swa_bn_clean', False)
            for _ in range(cfg.get('swa_bn_passes',5)):
                perm=torch.randperm(n,device=DEV)
                for s in range(0,n,bs):
                    idx=perm[s:s+bs]
                    xb=trx_d[idx] if bn_clean else augment(trx_d[idx],cfg)
                    final((xb-fm_d)/fs_d)
output
The file /app/exp.py has been edited successfully.
bash
cd /app && sleep 160; cat sweep_results.log | tail -4; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
cyc_i_30             CV rel=0.2331 mae=0.1431 mx=0.7450  (163s)
cyc_i_30b            CV rel=0.2341 mae=0.1443 mx=0.7436  (171s)
swi_long             CV rel=0.2451 mae=0.1498 mx=0.8105  (209s)
swi_ep300_s150       CV rel=0.2369 mae=0.1465 mx=0.7501  (95s)
---running?---
1
Batch4 still has swi_long_wd3 and cyc_i_noref_30 left. Let me wait. swi_ep300_s150 (plain SWA from 150, 300 ep): 0.2369 , same as swi basically. Let me wait for batch4 to complete, then launch batch5 (cyclic variations). While waiting let me write the final model builder script.
Let me write the final-model training script now (parameterized by the winning config), while the sweep continues.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: create
path: /app/build_final.py
file_text: from __future__ import annotations
import json, sys, copy, math, argparse
import torch, torch.nn.functional as F
sys.path.insert(0, '/app')
from candidate_model import build_model
import exp

DEV = exp.DEV
CFG = exp.CFG

# Winning configuration (cyclic SWA, isotropic norm, x/y reflection).
FINAL_CFG = dict(
    lr=1e-3, bs=16, wd=1e-4, warmup=20, loss='mse',
    iso_norm=True, refl_x=True, refl_y=True, ema=0.0,
    epochs=450, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4,
    swa_bn_passes=12, swa_bn_clean=True,
)

def train_full(cfg, X, Y, seed=0):
    torch.manual_seed(seed)
    if cfg.get('iso_norm', True):
        fm = X.mean(dim=(0,1)); fs = X.std().repeat(3).clamp_min(1e-6)
    else:
        fm = X.mean(dim=(0,1)); fs = X.std(dim=(0,1)).clamp_min(1e-6)
    lm = Y.mean(0); ls = Y.std(0).clamp_min(1e-6)
    fm_d, fs_d, lm_d, ls_d = fm.to(DEV), fs.to(DEV), lm.to(DEV), ls.to(DEV)
    model = build_model(CFG).to(DEV)
    opt = torch.optim.AdamW(model.parameters(), lr=cfg['lr'], weight_decay=cfg['wd'])
    epochs=cfg['epochs']; bs=cfg['bs']; warm=cfg['warmup']
    swa_start=cfg['swa_start']; cyc=cfg.get('cyc_len',0); cyc_hi=cfg.get('cyc_hi',0.5); cyc_lo=cfg.get('cyc_lo',0.0)
    def lr_at(ep):
        if ep<warm: return (ep+1)/warm
        if cyc>0 and ep>=swa_start:
            t=((ep-swa_start)%cyc)/cyc; return cyc_lo+(cyc_hi-cyc_lo)*0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*t))
        end = swa_start if (cyc>0 and swa_start<=epochs) else epochs
        p=(ep-warm)/max(1,(end-warm)); p=min(p,1.0); return 0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*p))
    Xd=X.to(DEV); Yd=Y.to(DEV); n=Xd.shape[0]
    swa_state=None; swa_n=0
    for ep in range(epochs):
        model.train()
        for g in opt.param_groups: g['lr']=cfg['lr']*lr_at(ep)
        perm=torch.randperm(n,device=DEV)
        for s in range(0,n,bs):
            idx=perm[s:s+bs]; xb=exp.augment(Xd[idx],cfg); xb=(xb-fm_d)/fs_d; ybn=(Yd[idx]-lm_d)/ls_d
            opt.zero_grad(set_to_none=True); pred=model(xb); loss=F.mse_loss(pred,ybn)
            loss.backward(); torch.nn.utils.clip_grad_norm_(model.parameters(),5.0); opt.step()
        snap = (cyc>0 and ep>=swa_start and (((ep-swa_start)%cyc)==cyc-1))
        if snap:
            with torch.no_grad():
                if swa_state is None:
                    swa_state={k:v.detach().clone().float() for k,v in model.state_dict().items()}; swa_n=1
                else:
                    swa_n+=1
                    for k,v in model.state_dict().items(): swa_state[k].mul_((swa_n-1)/swa_n).add_(v.float()/swa_n)
    print(f'[final] averaged {swa_n} SWA snapshots')
    final=build_model(CFG).to(DEV); final.load_state_dict({k:v.to(DEV) for k,v in swa_state.items()})
    final.train()
    with torch.no_grad():
        for _ in range(cfg['swa_bn_passes']):
            perm=torch.randperm(n,device=DEV)
            for s in range(0,n,bs):
                idx=perm[s:s+bs]
                xb=Xd[idx] if cfg.get('swa_bn_clean') else exp.augment(Xd[idx],cfg)
                final((xb-fm_d)/fs_d)
    final.eval()
    return final, fm, fs, lm, ls

def evaluate(model, fm, fs, lm, ls, X, Y):
    fm_d,fs_d,lm_d,ls_d=fm.to(DEV),fs.to(DEV),lm.to(DEV),ls.to(DEV)
    with torch.no_grad():
        p=model((X.to(DEV)-fm_d)/fs_d)*ls_d+lm_d
    return exp.metrics(p.cpu(), Y)

if __name__=='__main__':
    ap=argparse.ArgumentParser(); ap.add_argument('--seed',type=int,default=0)
    ap.add_argument('--holdout',action='store_true',help='train on train+val, test on public_test')
    ap.add_argument('--save',action='store_true'); a=ap.parse_args()
    if a.holdout:
        X=torch.cat([exp.TRX,exp.VAX],0); Y=torch.cat([exp.TRY,exp.VAY],0)
    else:
        X=torch.cat([exp.TRX,exp.VAX,exp.PTX],0); Y=torch.cat([exp.TRY,exp.VAY,exp.PTY],0)
    print(f'[final] training on {X.shape[0]} samples seed={a.seed}')
    model,fm,fs,lm,ls=train_full(FINAL_CFG, X, Y, seed=a.seed)
    print('[final] train-set metrics:', evaluate(model,fm,fs,lm,ls,X,Y)
…[truncated]
output
New file created successfully at /app/build_final.py
bash
cd /app && sleep 60; tail -3 sweep_results.log; n=$(ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l); echo "running=$n"
if [ "$n" -eq 0 ]; then nohup python sweep.py cyc_i_40 cyc_i_25 cyc_i_30_hi5 cyc_i_30_wd3 cyc_i_30_s120 cyc_i_30_long > sweep5.out 2>&1 & echo "launched batch5 pid $!"; fi
output
cyc_i_30b            CV rel=0.2341 mae=0.1443 mx=0.7436  (171s)
swi_long             CV rel=0.2451 mae=0.1498 mx=0.8105  (209s)
swi_ep300_s150       CV rel=0.2369 mae=0.1465 mx=0.7501  (95s)
running=1
Batch4 still running (cyc_i_noref_30 or swi_long_wd3). Let me wait more. Let me check both remaining. Actually let me wait ~150s. Let me reconsider the time I'm spending. I have a good config. Let me do a holdout validation of the final script (train on train+val, test public_test) to sanity check the final pipeline end-to-end, but that needs GPU (busy). Let me wait for batch4/5. Let me wait.
Let me wait for batch 4 to finish and batch 5 to launch.
bash
cd /app && sleep 180; tail -4 sweep_results.log; n=$(ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l); echo "running=$n"
if [ "$n" -eq 0 ]; then nohup python sweep.py cyc_i_40 cyc_i_25 cyc_i_30_hi5 cyc_i_30_wd3 cyc_i_30_s120 cyc_i_30_long > sweep5.out 2>&1 & echo "launched batch5 pid $!"; fi
output
cyc_i_30b            CV rel=0.2341 mae=0.1443 mx=0.7436  (171s)
swi_long             CV rel=0.2451 mae=0.1498 mx=0.8105  (209s)
swi_ep300_s150       CV rel=0.2369 mae=0.1465 mx=0.7501  (95s)
swi_long_wd3         CV rel=0.2393 mae=0.1449 mx=0.7795  (171s)
running=1
Still one running (cyc_i_noref_30). Let me wait for it. swi_long_wd3: 0.2393. Let me wait ~120s more.
bash
cd /app && sleep 120; tail -2 sweep_results.log; n=$(ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l); echo "running=$n"
if [ "$n" -eq 0 ]; then nohup python sweep.py cyc_i_40 cyc_i_25 cyc_i_30_hi5 cyc_i_30_wd3 cyc_i_30_s120 cyc_i_30_long > sweep5.out 2>&1 & echo "launched batch5 pid $!"; fi
output
swi_long_wd3         CV rel=0.2393 mae=0.1449 mx=0.7795  (171s)
cyc_i_noref_30       CV rel=0.2650 mae=0.1641 mx=0.8406  (183s)
running=0
launched batch5 pid 682
cyc_i_noref_30 (cyclic, isotropic, NO reflection): 0.2650 , confirms reflection helps with isotropic+cyclic (0.233 with refl vs 0.265 without). Good, reflection stays. Batch5 launched (cyclic variations). Let me wait. Summary of best so far (CV, 2 seeds, train+val pooled): - cyc_i_30: rel 0.2331, mae 0.1431, mx 0.745 ← best rel/mae - cyc_i_30b: rel 0.2341, mae 0.1443, mx 0.7436 - swi_ep400_s200: rel 0.2357, mae 0.1441, mx 0.766 - swi_s200: rel 0.2361, mx 0.7502 cyc_i_30 is the current best. Let me see batch5 for refinements. Let me wait ~240s for batch5 (some configs are 450-600 epochs). While waiting, let me think about robustly picking the final config. The differences between top configs are within ~0.002 rel, likely within seed noise (2 seeds). I'll run the top 2-3 configs with 4 seeds to pick robustly. But that's time. Alternatively, I'll just go with cyc_i_30 (clearly in the best cluster) and validate via holdout (public_test) and a multi-seed final check. Let me wait for batch5.
Reflection confirmed helpful (cyclic no-refl = 0.265 vs 0.233 with refl). Current best is `cyc_i_30` (rel 0.2331). Batch 5 refines cycle length/height/wd. Let me wait.
bash
cd /app && sleep 260; cat sweep_results.log | tail -5; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
swi_long             CV rel=0.2451 mae=0.1498 mx=0.8105  (209s)
swi_ep300_s150       CV rel=0.2369 mae=0.1465 mx=0.7501  (95s)
swi_long_wd3         CV rel=0.2393 mae=0.1449 mx=0.7795  (171s)
cyc_i_noref_30       CV rel=0.2650 mae=0.1641 mx=0.8406  (183s)
cyc_i_40             CV rel=0.2327 mae=0.1430 mx=0.7635  (178s)
---running?---
1
cyc_i_40 (cycle length 40): rel=0.2327, mae=0.1430, mx=0.7635. Marginally best rel. Very close to cyc_i_30. Let me wait for the rest of batch5 (cyc_i_25, cyc_i_30_hi5, cyc_i_30_wd3, cyc_i_30_s120, cyc_i_30_long). We're clearly plateaued at rel ~0.233. The differences are noise-level. Let me plan to: 1. Finish batch5. 2. Pick a robust config (cyc_i_30 or cyc_i_40). 3. Run the top config with 4+ seeds to confirm stability. 4. Build final model and validate via holdout on public_test. Let me wait.
`cyc_i_40` edges to rel=0.2327. We've plateaued around 0.233 (differences now at noise level). Let me wait for the remaining batch-5 configs.
bash
cd /app && sleep 260; cat sweep_results.log | tail -5; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
swi_long_wd3         CV rel=0.2393 mae=0.1449 mx=0.7795  (171s)
cyc_i_noref_30       CV rel=0.2650 mae=0.1641 mx=0.8406  (183s)
cyc_i_40             CV rel=0.2327 mae=0.1430 mx=0.7635  (178s)
cyc_i_25             CV rel=0.2331 mae=0.1433 mx=0.7399  (149s)
cyc_i_30_hi5         CV rel=0.2332 mae=0.1435 mx=0.7465  (166s)
---running?---
1
cyc_i_25: 0.2331 mx 0.7399; cyc_i_30_hi5: 0.2332. All clustered ~0.233. We've definitely plateaued. All cyclic-SWA isotropic+refl configs give rel ~0.233, mae ~0.143, mx ~0.74-0.76. Let me wait for the last 3 (cyc_i_30_wd3, cyc_i_30_s120, cyc_i_30_long) then finalize. Let me do a robust multi-seed check on cyc_i_30 (4 seeds) to confirm and then build the final model. Actually, I'm fairly confident. Let me pick cyc_i_30 as the config (it's representative of the best cluster, with good rel/mae/mx balance). But cyc_i_40 had marginally better rel and cyc_i_25 better mx. Let me do a 4-seed comparison of cyc_i_30, cyc_i_40, cyc_i_25 to pick the most robust. That's 3 configs × 4 seeds × 5 folds = 60 runs × ~10s = 600s. Too long for one call. Let me run in background. Actually, let me reconsider. Since they're all within noise, the specific choice barely matters. Let me just run a higher-seed (4 seeds: 0,1,2,3) eval of cyc_i_30 and cyc_i_40 in the background to confirm stability, and simultaneously validate the final pipeline. Let me wait for batch5 to finish first (avoid GPU contention), then launch a focused multi-seed run. Let me wait ~200s.
All cyclic variants cluster tightly at rel≈0.233 , a clear plateau. Let me wait for batch 5 to finish, then run a higher-seed robustness check on the top configs to choose the final one reliably.
bash
cd /app && sleep 220; cat sweep_results.log | tail -4; n=$(ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l); echo "running=$n"
if [ "$n" -eq 0 ]; then SEEDS=0,1,2,3 nohup python sweep.py cyc_i_30 cyc_i_40 cyc_i_25 > sweep6.out 2>&1 & echo "launched batch6 (4-seed) pid $!"; fi
output
cyc_i_40             CV rel=0.2327 mae=0.1430 mx=0.7635  (178s)
cyc_i_25             CV rel=0.2331 mae=0.1433 mx=0.7399  (149s)
cyc_i_30_hi5         CV rel=0.2332 mae=0.1435 mx=0.7465  (166s)
cyc_i_30_wd3         CV rel=0.2407 mae=0.1473 mx=0.7417  (166s)
running=1
cyc_i_30_wd3: 0.2407 (wd 3e-4 slightly worse rel, lower mx). Batch5 still running (cyc_i_30_s120, cyc_i_30_long). n=1 so batch6 not launched. Let me wait. Let me wait for batch5 to finish.
bash
cd /app && sleep 200; cat sweep_results.log | tail -3; n=$(ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l); echo "running=$n"
if [ "$n" -eq 0 ]; then SEEDS=0,1,2,3 nohup python sweep.py cyc_i_30 cyc_i_40 cyc_i_25 > sweep6.out 2>&1 & echo "launched batch6 (4-seed) pid $!"; fi
output
cyc_i_30_hi5         CV rel=0.2332 mae=0.1435 mx=0.7465  (166s)
cyc_i_30_wd3         CV rel=0.2407 mae=0.1473 mx=0.7417  (166s)
cyc_i_30_s120        CV rel=0.2346 mae=0.1464 mx=0.7389  (123s)
running=1
cyc_i_30_s120 (swa_start 120): 0.2346. Still running cyc_i_30_long. Let me wait. Let me wait ~130s for cyc_i_30_long, then batch6 launches.
bash
cd /app && sleep 150; cat sweep_results.log | tail -2; n=$(ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l); echo "running=$n"
if [ "$n" -eq 0 ]; then SEEDS=0,1,2,3 nohup python sweep.py cyc_i_30 cyc_i_40 cyc_i_25 > sweep6.out 2>&1 & echo "launched batch6 (4-seed) pid $!"; fi
output
cyc_i_30_s120        CV rel=0.2346 mae=0.1464 mx=0.7389  (123s)
cyc_i_30_long        CV rel=0.2313 mae=0.1414 mx=0.7619  (195s)
running=0
launched batch6 (4-seed) pid 758
cyc_i_30_long (600 epochs, swa_start 150, cycle 30 → 15 cycles averaged): rel=0.2313, mae=0.1414, mx=0.7619 , best rel/mae yet! More cycles (15 vs 10) to average → better. So more cyclic snapshots helps. cyc_i_30_long: 600 epochs, swa_start 150, cycle 30 → (600-150)/30 = 15 snapshots. rel 0.2313. This suggests even more cycles might help further, with diminishing returns. Let me add cyc_i_30 with 750 epochs (20 snapshots) to batch to check. But batch6 (4-seed on cyc_i_30/40/25) is running now. Let me let it run to get robust estimates, and separately note cyc_i_30_long is promising. Actually, let me reconsider: I should make the FINAL config use more cycles (like cyc_i_30_long: 600 epochs). Let me update FINAL_CFG to epochs=600. But let me also verify with a multi-seed run. Let me wait for batch6 (4-seed) results. That's 3 configs × 4 seeds × 5 folds = 60 runs. Each ~10-14s (cyc configs are 450-470 epochs). ~60×12 = 720s. That's long (>300s per call). Let me wait in chunks. Actually, batch6 runs cyc_i_30 (450ep), cyc_i_40 (470ep), cyc_i_25 (450ep), each 4 seeds. ~4×5×11s = 220s per config, ~660s total. Let me wait and poll. Meanwhile, let me add a longer-cycle config to explore and plan to test it. Let me add cyc_i_30_xlong (750 ep) and cyc_i_40_long. I'll run after batch6. Let me update sweep.py.
**`cyc_i_30_long` (600 epochs = 15 averaged cycles) is the new best: rel=0.2313, mae=0.1414.** More snapshots to average → better generalization. The 4-seed robustness check is now running. Let me add even-longer-cycle configs to test the trend, and update the final config.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/sweep.py
old_str:  'cyc_i_30_bnp10': dict(swi, epochs=450, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4, swa_bn_passes=10),
})
new_str:  'cyc_i_30_bnp10': dict(swi, epochs=450, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4, swa_bn_passes=10),
 'cyc_i_30_xlong': dict(swi, epochs=750, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4),
 'cyc_i_30_xxlong': dict(swi, epochs=1050, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4),
 'cyc_i_40_long': dict(swi, epochs=790, swa_start=150, cyc_len=40, cyc_hi=0.4),
 'cyc_i_30_long_hi5': dict(swi, epochs=600, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.5),
 'cyc_i_30_long_wd3': dict(swi, epochs=600, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4, wd=3e-4),
 'cyc_i_30_long_clean': dict(swi, epochs=600, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4, swa_bn_clean=True),
})
output
The file /app/sweep.py has been edited successfully.
bash
cd /app && sleep 250; cat sweep_results.log | tail -4; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
cyc_i_30_hi5         CV rel=0.2332 mae=0.1435 mx=0.7465  (166s)
cyc_i_30_wd3         CV rel=0.2407 mae=0.1473 mx=0.7417  (166s)
cyc_i_30_s120        CV rel=0.2346 mae=0.1464 mx=0.7389  (123s)
cyc_i_30_long        CV rel=0.2313 mae=0.1414 mx=0.7619  (195s)
---running?---
1
Batch6 (4-seed) still running, no results appended yet (it takes ~220s per config). Let me wait more. Let me wait ~250s.
The 4-seed runs take longer to appear. Let me wait for them.
bash
cd /app && sleep 270; cat sweep_results.log | tail -3; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
cyc_i_30_s120        CV rel=0.2346 mae=0.1464 mx=0.7389  (123s)
cyc_i_30_long        CV rel=0.2313 mae=0.1414 mx=0.7619  (195s)
cyc_i_30             CV rel=0.2439 mae=0.1487 mx=0.7526  (307s)
---running?---
1
Important! With 4 seeds (0,1,2,3), cyc_i_30 gives rel=0.2439 , notably HIGHER than the 2-seed estimate (0.2331). This confirms significant seed variance. The 2-seed estimates were optimistic for this config. The 4-seed estimate (0.2439) is more reliable. So seeds 2 and 3 gave worse results, pulling the average up. This means the config has variance, and I need robust multi-seed evaluation to choose. This is important , my "plateau at 0.233" was partly lucky seeds. Let me wait for cyc_i_40 and cyc_i_25 4-seed results to compare fairly. This also means the FINAL single model (one seed) could land anywhere in this range depending on seed. To reduce this variance in the single deliverable, I should: 1. Use more cyclic snapshots (longer training) , cyc_i_30_long averages more, likely lower variance. 2. Possibly pick the config with best 4-seed mean AND low variance. The key insight: I can't control which "seed" the grader sees , I produce ONE model. So I want a config + seed that's robust. Since I can evaluate on public_test (held out from my CV on train+val), I can use public_test as a tiebreaker/sanity for the final model. But I shouldn't over-optimize to 16 samples. Let me get the 4-seed results for cyc_i_40 and cyc_i_25, and also run cyc_i_30_long with 4 seeds (it should be more stable). Let me wait. Actually, the most robust approach for the single deliverable: train the final model with MANY cyclic snapshots averaged (e.g., cyc_i_30_xlong, 750 ep = 20 snapshots, or xxlong 1050 = 30 snapshots). The more snapshots averaged, the less sensitive to any single SGD trajectory's noise → lower variance and often lower error. Let me verify this reduces variance by running cyc_i_30_long and xlong with 4 seeds. Let me wait for batch6 to finish then launch a 4-seed run on the long configs. Let me wait ~260s.
Key finding: with **4 seeds**, cyc_i_30 rises to rel=0.2439 (vs 0.2331 at 2 seeds) , there's real seed variance, and my 2-seed estimates were optimistic. Since I ship ONE model, I should prefer configs that average MANY cyclic snapshots (lower variance). Let me get the other 4-seed results.
bash
cd /app && sleep 260; cat sweep_results.log | tail -3; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
cyc_i_30_long        CV rel=0.2313 mae=0.1414 mx=0.7619  (195s)
cyc_i_30             CV rel=0.2439 mae=0.1487 mx=0.7526  (307s)
cyc_i_40             CV rel=0.2442 mae=0.1488 mx=0.7741  (337s)
---running?---
1
4-seed results: - cyc_i_30: 0.2439 - cyc_i_40: 0.2442 Both ~0.244 with 4 seeds. Consistent. Let me wait for cyc_i_25 (4-seed), then run the LONG configs with 4 seeds to see if more snapshots reduce the mean/variance. Let me wait for cyc_i_25 then launch a 4-seed run on cyc_i_30_long, cyc_i_30_xlong, cyc_i_30_xxlong. Let me wait ~260s.
Both cyc_i_30 and cyc_i_40 sit at ~0.244 over 4 seeds. Let me wait for cyc_i_25, then run the longer (more-snapshot) configs over 4 seeds to test whether more averaging lowers the robust mean.
bash
cd /app && sleep 250; tail -1 sweep_results.log; n=$(ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l); echo "running=$n"
if [ "$n" -eq 0 ]; then SEEDS=0,1,2,3 nohup python sweep.py cyc_i_30_long cyc_i_30_xlong cyc_i_30_xxlong > sweep7.out 2>&1 & echo "launched batch7 (4-seed long) pid $!"; fi
output
cyc_i_25             CV rel=0.2444 mae=0.1491 mx=0.7532  (266s)
running=0
launched batch7 (4-seed long) pid 830
cyc_i_25 (4-seed): 0.2444. All three (25/30/40) converge to ~0.244 over 4 seeds. Very consistent , the cycle length doesn't matter much; the robust estimate is ~0.244. Now batch7 tests the LONG configs (more snapshots) over 4 seeds: cyc_i_30_long (600ep/15 snaps), xlong (750ep/20 snaps), xxlong (1050ep/30 snaps). If more snapshots lower the 4-seed mean below 0.244, that's the win. Let me wait. These are long runs (600-1050 epochs × 4 seeds × 5 folds). xxlong especially: 1050 ep × 20 runs. 1050 ep ≈ 45s each × 20 = 900s just for xxlong. Plus xlong ~650s, long ~500s. Total ~2050s. That's a lot. Let me wait in chunks and maybe kill xxlong if needed. Actually, let me reconsider time budget. I've used substantial time. Let me be decisive. The robust CV estimate is ~0.244 for cyclic configs. cyc_i_30_long at 2-seed was 0.2313 (best), need to see its 4-seed. Let me wait ~270s and check progress. While waiting, let me think about the final model and whether there's a way to reduce variance further / improve. One more idea: average snapshots across MULTIPLE independent trajectories won't work (permutation). But I could do a longer single trajectory with many cycles , that's what xlong/xxlong test. Another idea to reduce the single-model variance: since I can evaluate on public_test (16 samples, held out from CV-on-train+val), I could train a few final candidates (different seeds) on train+val and pick the one with best public_test, then retrain on all data with that seed. But public_test is only 16 samples , risky to over-optimize. Better: just use many snapshots for stability. Let me wait for batch7.
All cycle lengths converge to a robust ~0.244 over 4 seeds , cycle length barely matters. Batch 7 tests whether more averaged snapshots (600/750/1050 epochs) lowers the robust mean. Let me wait.
bash
cd /app && sleep 275; cat sweep_results.log | tail -2; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
cyc_i_40             CV rel=0.2442 mae=0.1488 mx=0.7741  (337s)
cyc_i_25             CV rel=0.2444 mae=0.1491 mx=0.7532  (266s)
---running?---
1
Batch7 still running (no results yet , the long configs take a while). Let me wait more. cyc_i_30_long is 600ep × 20 runs. Let me wait ~270s. Meanwhile, let me reconsider: the robust estimate ~0.244 is my honest expectation for a model trained on 80% of train+val (106 samples) and tested on held-out 26. The FINAL model trains on ALL 148 labeled (train+val+public_test), which is 40% more data than each CV fold's 106 → should generalize somewhat better. Plus the test set might be "easier" (interpolated). So I expect the final test rel L2 to be somewhat below 0.244, maybe ~0.20-0.23. Hard to know. Let me also verify the final pipeline works end-to-end (holdout mode: train on train+val, eval public_test) to sanity check. I'll do that after batch7 or once GPU frees. Let me wait.
Batch 7's long runs are still computing. Let me wait for the first result.
bash
cd /app && sleep 275; cat sweep_results.log | tail -2; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
cyc_i_25             CV rel=0.2444 mae=0.1491 mx=0.7532  (266s)
cyc_i_30_long        CV rel=0.2411 mae=0.1463 mx=0.7550  (429s)
---running?---
1
cyc_i_30_long (600ep, 15 snapshots) 4-seed: rel=0.2411, mae=0.1463, mx=0.7550. Slightly better than cyc_i_30's 0.2439. So more snapshots (15 vs 10) gives a small improvement in the robust mean (0.2411 vs 0.2439). Let me wait for xlong (750ep, 20 snaps) and xxlong (1050ep, 30 snaps) to see if the trend continues. Let me wait ~280s.
`cyc_i_30_long` (15 snapshots) improves the robust 4-seed mean to 0.2411 (from 0.2439). More averaging helps. Let me see xlong/xxlong.
bash
cd /app && sleep 280; cat sweep_results.log | tail -2; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
cyc_i_25             CV rel=0.2444 mae=0.1491 mx=0.7532  (266s)
cyc_i_30_long        CV rel=0.2411 mae=0.1463 mx=0.7550  (429s)
---running?---
1
xlong still running. Let me wait more. xlong is 750ep × 20 runs ≈ 750/450*11 ≈ 18s × 20 = 360s. Let me wait ~280s.
bash
cd /app && sleep 280; cat sweep_results.log | tail -2; echo "---running?---"; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
cyc_i_30_long        CV rel=0.2411 mae=0.1463 mx=0.7550  (429s)
cyc_i_30_xlong       CV rel=0.2408 mae=0.1452 mx=0.7636  (486s)
---running?---
1
cyc_i_30_xlong (750ep, 20 snaps) 4-seed: rel=0.2408, mae=0.1452, mx=0.7636. Basically same as long (0.2411). Diminishing returns , 15 vs 20 snapshots no real difference. So the plateau for the robust 4-seed mean is ~0.241. xxlong (30 snaps) still running but likely similar. Decision: the robust CV estimate is ~0.241 rel L2 for the cyclic-SWA isotropic+refl configs with ~15+ snapshots. Going beyond 15 snapshots gives no benefit. I'll use cyc_i_30_long (600 epochs, 15 snapshots) for the final model , good balance of averaging and training time. Let me now: 1. Wait for xxlong (optional, likely same). 2. Validate the final pipeline in holdout mode (train on train+val, eval public_test) to confirm it works and gives sane numbers. 3. Build the final model on ALL labeled data, save checkpoint. 4. Verify the checkpoint loads and produces correct output shape and sane predictions. Let me kill xxlong if it's taking too long (it won't change the decision) , actually let me let it finish or check. Let me wait a bit then proceed regardless. Actually, let me not waste time. Let me wait for xxlong result (it's informative about over-averaging) but prepare to move on. Let me check in ~200s, and meanwhile I can't use GPU (busy). Let me wait. Actually, let me reconsider whether I should also validate swa_bn_clean (recompute BN on clean data) for the final model. The CV configs used augmented BN (default). My FINAL_CFG uses swa_bn_clean=True. Let me verify clean BN doesn't hurt by checking cyc_i_30_long_clean. I added it to the sweep but haven't run it. Let me run it along with confirming. But I also want to just get moving. Let me decide: For the final model, whether BN is recomputed on clean or augmented data is a minor detail. Since test data is clean (no reflection), recomputing BN on clean data is more principled. But reflections are symmetric so the distribution is nearly identical. To be safe and consistent with what I validated in CV (augmented BN gave 0.241), I could use augmented BN. But clean BN should be marginally better for clean test. Let me quickly test cyc_i_30_long_clean in CV (2-seed is enough to compare to the augmented version's 2-seed 0.2313) to be sure clean doesn't hurt. Let me wait for xxlong, then run a quick 2-seed cyc_i_30_long_clean comparison, and holdout validation. Let me wait ~200s for xxlong.
xlong (20 snapshots) matches long (15) at ~0.241 , diminishing returns past ~15 snapshots. So `cyc_i_30_long` (600 epochs) is my final config. Let me wait for xxlong to confirm no over-averaging benefit, then validate the clean-BN choice and the end-to-end pipeline.
bash
cd /app && sleep 230; cat sweep_results.log | tail -2; n=$(ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l); echo "running=$n"
if [ "$n" -eq 0 ]; then SEEDS=0,1 nohup python sweep.py cyc_i_30_long_clean > sweep8.out 2>&1 & echo "launched clean-BN check pid $!"; fi
output
cyc_i_30_long        CV rel=0.2411 mae=0.1463 mx=0.7550  (429s)
cyc_i_30_xlong       CV rel=0.2408 mae=0.1452 mx=0.7636  (486s)
running=1
xxlong still running. Let me wait. It's 1050ep × 20 runs ≈ 1050/600*21 ≈ 37s × 20 = 740s. That's long. Let me wait another ~280s. Actually, I realize I should make better use of this waiting time. xxlong won't change my decision. Let me kill it and proceed with the clean-BN check + holdout validation + final build. The robust plateau is clearly ~0.241. Let me kill the xxlong run.
xxlong won't change the decision (plateau is clear at ~0.241). Let me stop it and move forward with validation and final model building.
bash
cd /app && pkill -f "sweep.py cyc_i_30_xxlong"; pkill -f "cyc_i_30_xxlong"; sleep 3; ps aux|grep sweep.py|grep -v grep|wc -l; echo "killed"
output
0
killed
[stderr]
[8]+  Terminated              SEEDS=0,1,2,3 nohup python sweep.py cyc_i_30_long cyc_i_30_xlong cyc_i_30_xxlong > sweep7.out 2>&1
Now let me validate the end-to-end final pipeline in holdout mode (train on train+val, evaluate on the untouched public_test) to confirm it works and gives sane numbers.
bash
cd /app && sed -i "s/epochs=450, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4,/epochs=600, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4,/" build_final.py
grep -n "epochs=" build_final.py | head -1
timeout 260 python build_final.py --holdout --seed 0
output
15:    epochs=600, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4,
[final] training on 132 samples seed=0
[final] averaged 15 SWA snapshots
[final] train-set metrics: (0.11398720741271973, 0.07595550268888474, 0.31333398818969727)
[final] public_test metrics: (0.2630518078804016, 0.16714900732040405, 0.5847331285476685)
Holdout validation (train on train+val=132, test on public_test=16, seed 0): - public_test: rel=0.2631, mae=0.1671, mx=0.5847 This is an honest held-out estimate on a set NOT used in CV (well, public_test wasn't in the CV pool). rel 0.263 on public_test. The train-set metrics (rel 0.114) show it fits training well but generalizes to ~0.26 on public_test. Note public_test has a narrower mass range (max 1.45 vs 2.2), and the max error on public_test is 0.585. This is consistent with CV (~0.24 rel). public_test is a bit higher (0.263) but it's only 16 samples. Let me check a few seeds for public_test to gauge variance of the final model. Let me run seeds 1, 2, 3 in holdout and see spread. This tells me how much the single-model choice varies. Let me run seeds 1,2,3 holdout in background (each ~70s → ~210s). Actually let me run them sequentially in one call with timeout. Wait , the clean-BN check (sweep8) might still be... no, I killed all sweeps. Let me check GPU is free. The holdout run just completed, so GPU is free. Let me run seeds 1,2,3 holdout. Actually, I want to be efficient. Let me run seeds 1,2,3 holdout to assess variance, then decide on final seed/ensemble strategy. Let me run them in one script quickly.
Holdout (train on train+val, test on untouched public_test) gives rel=0.263, mae=0.167, mx=0.585 , consistent with CV and confirming the pipeline works end-to-end. Let me check seed variance of the final model across a few seeds.
bash
cd /app && for s in 1 2 3; do timeout 120 python build_final.py --holdout --seed $s 2>/dev/null | grep "public_test"; done
output
[final] public_test metrics: (0.2846347689628601, 0.17550839483737946, 0.6144728660583496)
[final] public_test metrics: (0.19515667855739594, 0.11830005049705505, 0.35822218656539917)
[final] public_test metrics: (0.24171754717826843, 0.1379036009311676, 0.49358272552490234)
Public_test metrics across seeds: - seed 0: rel 0.2631, mae 0.1671, mx 0.585 - seed 1: rel 0.2846, mae 0.1755, mx 0.614 - seed 2: rel 0.1952, mae 0.1183, mx 0.358 - seed 3: rel 0.2417, mae 0.1379, mx 0.494 Mean ~0.246, range 0.195-0.285. So the single model varies by seed. Seed 2 is best on public_test but I shouldn't cherry-pick on 16 samples. This variance is a concern for the single deliverable. How to reduce it for ONE model? Idea: ensemble within the forward pass is impossible (fixed architecture). BUT , I can average WEIGHTS of multiple cyclic snapshots from a SINGLE trajectory (that's SWA, already doing, averages 15). The remaining variance is the trajectory/seed variance. Another idea: can I reduce seed variance by running a LONGER single trajectory that explores more of the basin, averaging more diverse snapshots? I showed 15 vs 20 snapshots plateaus. So within one trajectory, variance is limited by the trajectory. Key realization: I cannot ensemble independent models into one state_dict (permutation symmetry breaks naive weight averaging). BUT I CAN train a single long trajectory that periodically does large warm restarts, potentially moving between basins, and SWA-average , but averaging weights across different basins gives a bad model. Alternatively , I could reduce variance by training on MORE data. The final model uses all 148 (train+val+public_test), more than the 132 in holdout. More data → less variance and better generalization. Good. But the fundamental single-model variance remains. To get a robust single model, the best I can do is: 1. Train on all data (148). 2. Use many SWA snapshots (15) for stability. 3. Pick a seed. Since I can't validate the all-data model on held-out (no held-out left), I'll rely on the config being robust. Hmm, but I have public_test which, if I DON'T train on it, serves as validation. Trade-off: - Option A: Train final on all 148 (incl public_test). More data, better expected generalization, but no validation and can't pick seed. - Option B: Train final on train+val (132), use public_test to pick the best seed among several. Then that's my model. Less data but seed-validated. With only 16 public_test samples, picking seed on them is noisy (could pick a seed that's lucky on those 16 but not on true test). A better approach: Option C , train on all 148 with a FIXED seed, but reduce variance by using a robust averaging. Since I can't ensemble, accept the variance. The expected rel L2 ~0.24. Actually, wait. There IS a legitimate way to ensemble into one checkpoint here: the architecture is fixed, but I control feat_mean/std and label_mean/std only , not a way to ensemble. Hold on, reconsider weight averaging across seeds. Naive averaging of independently initialized networks fails due to permutation symmetry. BUT if all models start from the SAME initialization (same seed for init) and only differ in data ordering / augmentation randomness, they stay in the same basin and their weights CAN be averaged meaningfully (this is the basis of "model soups"). Model soups! I can train multiple models from the same init (same torch seed for weight init) with different training randomness (data shuffling, augmentation), then average their weights. Since they share init and the loss landscape is connected, averaging often works and reduces variance , and it's ONE state_dict. Even better, I can combine this with SWA (each run contributes its SWA-averaged weights, then average across runs). This is promising! Let me test a "model soup": train K trajectories from the same init (fixed init seed, different shuffle/aug seeds), SWA-average within each, then average the K results. Evaluate in holdout. Actually, even simpler and proven: since all my cyclic snapshots already come from one trajectory (one init), I could run ONE long trajectory from a fixed init and just average all cyclic snapshots (already doing). To get cross-seed robustness in ONE model, the model-soup-from-shared-ini …[truncated]
The single model has real seed variance (public_test rel 0.195–0.285). Since the architecture is fixed I can't ensemble at inference , but I *can* build a **model soup**: train several trajectories from the *same weight initialization* (varying only data/augmentation randomness) so they stay in one loss basin, then average their weights into one `state_dict`. This reduces variance while remaining a single valid checkpoint. Let me implement and test it.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/build_final.py
old_str: def train_full(cfg, X, Y, seed=0):
    torch.manual_seed(seed)
    if cfg.get('iso_norm', True):
new_str: def collect_swa(cfg, X, Y, fm_d, fs_d, lm_d, ls_d, init_seed=0, run_seed=0):
    """One trajectory from a fixed init; returns averaged SWA state (on DEV)."""
    torch.manual_seed(init_seed)
    model = build_model(CFG).to(DEV)
    g = torch.Generator(device=DEV).manual_seed(run_seed)
    torch.manual_seed(run_seed + 1000)  # aug RNG (augment uses global RNG)
    opt = torch.optim.AdamW(model.parameters(), lr=cfg['lr'], weight_decay=cfg['wd'])
    epochs=cfg['epochs']; bs=cfg['bs']; warm=cfg['warmup']
    swa_start=cfg['swa_start']; cyc=cfg.get('cyc_len',0); cyc_hi=cfg.get('cyc_hi',0.5); cyc_lo=cfg.get('cyc_lo',0.0)
    def lr_at(ep):
        if ep<warm: return (ep+1)/warm
        if cyc>0 and ep>=swa_start:
            t=((ep-swa_start)%cyc)/cyc; return cyc_lo+(cyc_hi-cyc_lo)*0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*t))
        end = swa_start if (cyc>0 and swa_start<=epochs) else epochs
        p=(ep-warm)/max(1,(end-warm)); p=min(p,1.0); return 0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*p))
    Xd=X.to(DEV); Yd=Y.to(DEV); n=Xd.shape[0]
    swa_state=None; swa_n=0
    for ep in range(epochs):
        model.train()
        for gr in opt.param_groups: gr['lr']=cfg['lr']*lr_at(ep)
        perm=torch.randperm(n,device=DEV,generator=g)
        for s in range(0,n,bs):
            idx=perm[s:s+bs]; xb=exp.augment(Xd[idx],cfg); xb=(xb-fm_d)/fs_d; ybn=(Yd[idx]-lm_d)/ls_d
            opt.zero_grad(set_to_none=True); pred=model(xb); loss=F.mse_loss(pred,ybn)
            loss.backward(); torch.nn.utils.clip_grad_norm_(model.parameters(),5.0); opt.step()
        snap=(cyc>0 and ep>=swa_start and (((ep-swa_start)%cyc)==cyc-1))
        if snap:
            with torch.no_grad():
                if swa_state is None:
                    swa_state={k:v.detach().clone().float() for k,v in model.state_dict().items()}; swa_n=1
                else:
                    swa_n+=1
                    for k,v in model.state_dict().items(): swa_state[k].mul_((swa_n-1)/swa_n).add_(v.float()/swa_n)
    return swa_state, swa_n

def train_soup(cfg, X, Y, init_seed=0, n_runs=4):
    if cfg.get('iso_norm', True):
        fm = X.mean(dim=(0,1)); fs = X.std().repeat(3).clamp_min(1e-6)
    else:
        fm = X.mean(dim=(0,1)); fs = X.std(dim=(0,1)).clamp_min(1e-6)
    lm = Y.mean(0); ls = Y.std(0).clamp_min(1e-6)
    fm_d, fs_d, lm_d, ls_d = fm.to(DEV), fs.to(DEV), lm.to(DEV), ls.to(DEV)
    soup=None; tot=0
    for r in range(n_runs):
        st,k = collect_swa(cfg, X, Y, fm_d, fs_d, lm_d, ls_d, init_seed=init_seed, run_seed=100+r)
        if soup is None: soup={kk:vv.clone() for kk,vv in st.items()}; tot=1
        else:
            tot+=1
            for kk in soup: soup[kk].mul_((tot-1)/tot).add_(st[kk]/tot)
    print(f'[soup] averaged {tot} trajectories (same init {init_seed})')
    final=build_model(CFG).to(DEV); final.load_state_dict({k:v.to(DEV) for k,v in soup.items()})
    Xd=X.to(DEV); n=Xd.shape[0]; bs=cfg['bs']
    final.train()
    with torch.no_grad():
        gg=torch.Generator(device=DEV).manual_seed(777)
        for _ in range(cfg['swa_bn_passes']):
            perm=torch.randperm(n,device=DEV,generator=gg)
            for s in range(0,n,bs):
                idx=perm[s:s+bs]
                xb=Xd[idx] if cfg.get('swa_bn_clean') else exp.augment(Xd[idx],cfg)
                final((xb-fm_d)/fs_d)
    final.eval()
    return final, fm, fs, lm, ls

def train_full(cfg, X, Y, seed=0):
    torch.manual_seed(seed)
    if cfg.get('iso_norm', True):
output
The file /app/build_final.py has been edited successfully.
Now let me add a soup option to the main and test it in holdout mode. Let me add argparse flags for --soup and --runs and --init_seed.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/build_final.py
old_str:     ap.add_argument('--save',action='store_true'); a=ap.parse_args()
new_str:     ap.add_argument('--save',action='store_true')
    ap.add_argument('--soup',action='store_true'); ap.add_argument('--runs',type=int,default=4)
    a=ap.parse_args()
output
The file /app/build_final.py has been edited successfully.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/build_final.py
old_str:     print(f'[final] training on {X.shape[0]} samples seed={a.seed}')
    model,fm,fs,lm,ls=train_full(FINAL_CFG, X, Y, seed=a.seed)
new_str:     print(f'[final] training on {X.shape[0]} samples seed={a.seed} soup={a.soup}')
    if a.soup:
        model,fm,fs,lm,ls=train_soup(FINAL_CFG, X, Y, init_seed=a.seed, n_runs=a.runs)
    else:
        model,fm,fs,lm,ls=train_full(FINAL_CFG, X, Y, seed=a.seed)
output
The file /app/build_final.py has been edited successfully.
Now let me test the model soup in holdout mode across a couple of init seeds to see if it reduces variance and improves over single runs:
bash
cd /app && for s in 0 1 2; do timeout 280 python build_final.py --holdout --soup --runs 4 --seed $s 2>/dev/null | grep -E "soup|public_test"; done
output
[final] training on 132 samples seed=0 soup=True
[soup] averaged 4 trajectories (same init 0)
[final] public_test metrics: (0.23548197746276855, 0.1443934440612793, 0.5471714735031128)
[final] training on 132 samples seed=1 soup=True
[soup] averaged 4 trajectories (same init 1)
[final] public_test metrics: (0.26031696796417236, 0.1684635579586029, 0.4037545919418335)
[final] training on 132 samples seed=2 soup=True
[soup] averaged 4 trajectories (same init 2)
[final] public_test metrics: (0.266431987285614, 0.1779957264661789, 0.3706310987472534)
Model soup (4 trajectories, same init) holdout public_test: - init 0: rel 0.2355, mae 0.1444, mx 0.547 - init 1: rel 0.2603, mae 0.1685, mx 0.404 - init 2: rel 0.2664, mae 0.1780, mx 0.371 Compared to single runs (seeds 0-3: 0.263, 0.285, 0.195, 0.242; mean ~0.246). The soup means: 0.235, 0.260, 0.266 → mean ~0.254. Hmm, the soup didn't clearly beat single runs on public_test mean, though it did reduce the max error in some cases (0.404, 0.371 are lower than single-run max ~0.49-0.61). But this is confusing because the init seed matters , averaging within same init reduces variance around THAT init but each init has a different "center". The soup variance across inits (0.235-0.266) is tighter than single-run variance (0.195-0.285), which is the point , more robust/predictable. But the soup mean isn't better. Let me reconsider. The model soup reduces variance but centers at the "basin average" for each init. Since different inits give different basins, there's still init variance. The real benefit: within one deliverable, the soup is more robust than betting on one lucky seed. Hmm, but the soup results (0.235, 0.260, 0.266) don't clearly beat the single-run distribution. Actually seed 2 single run got 0.195 which is better than any soup. But that's cherry-picking a lucky seed. Let me think about what's actually best for the final model. The comparison should be apples-to-apples. Let me do proper CV comparison of soup vs single via the cv framework. But soup is expensive (4x). Actually, let me step back and reconsider the goal. I want the lowest EXPECTED rel L2 on the true held-out test, with low risk. Both single and soup give ~0.24-0.25 on public_test. The CV (robust, train+val) gave ~0.241 for single cyclic SWA. Let me reconsider whether the soup genuinely helps generalization via a proper CV. Let me implement soup in the CV framework and compare to single over the same folds/seeds. This gives the cleanest comparison. But it's 4x cost. Given time constraints, let me be pragmatic. Key question: does averaging across trajectories (soup) reduce error vs a single trajectory, on held-out data, on average? Theory says: averaging weights of models in the same basin reduces variance of the estimator → typically reduces error or at least doesn't hurt, and reduces worst-case. The holdout max errors for soup (0.40, 0.37) are notably better than single (0.49-0.61), which matters for the max-error metric. And rel is comparable. So soup seems safer (better worst-case, similar rel). Let me do a cleaner test: compare single-run vs 4-soup on the SAME held-out using averaged-over-init to reduce the init noise. I'll run more inits for both and compare distributions. But that's expensive. Let me instead just make a decision based on solid reasoning: - The soup reduces variance and improves worst-case (max error) , valuable for the max-abs metric. - Its rel L2 is comparable to single. - For a single deliverable where I can't pick a lucky seed, the soup is the more robust, principled choice. So I'll use a model soup for the final model, trained on ALL 148 labeled samples. I'll use more trajectories (e.g., 6-8) for extra stability, since training is cheap. And I'll average over snapshots×trajectories. But I'm slightly concerned the soup mean (~0.254 on public_test) isn't beating single. Let me do one more robustness analysis: run the CV with soup (2 trajectories to keep cost down, 2 seeds) vs single to see if soup helps or hurts the robust mean. Actually, let me reduce cost: use a "mini-soup" of 3 trajectories in CV with 2 seeds. That's 3x the single CV cost (~110s×3 = 330s per... no). CV soup = 5 folds × 2 seeds × 3 trajectories × 600ep. That's 30 trajectories × ~25s = 750s. Too long for one call. Let me instead reason and commit. Actually, let me reconsider the whole approach to reduce RISK. Let me reconsider: maybe a cleaner win is to NOT use warm restarts (which add variance) but just do plain SWA over a long cosine tail, com …[truncated]
The **model soup dramatically tightens variance**: single-run public_test rel spans 0.195–0.285 (range 0.09), while 4-trajectory soups span only 0.235–0.266 (range 0.03) , ~3× more predictable , and it improves worst-case error (max 0.37–0.55 vs 0.49–0.61). For a one-shot checkpoint, that robustness is exactly what I want. Note the soup requires a *shared init* (averaging across different inits breaks due to permutation symmetry). Let me build the final soup on all 148 labeled samples and save it.
bash
cd /app && timeout 290 python build_final.py --soup --runs 8 --seed 0 --save 2>/dev/null | grep -E "soup|metrics|saved|training on"
output
[final] training on 148 samples seed=0 soup=True
[soup] averaged 8 trajectories (same init 0)
[final] train-set metrics: (0.19427338242530823, 0.1318798065185547, 0.5948632955551147)
[final] saved /app/outputs/model.pt
The final model trained on all 148 samples, soup of 8 trajectories, saved. The train-set metrics (rel 0.194 on the training data itself) , note this is on data it trained on, so it's optimistic but not super low (0.194) because the soup is heavily regularized (averaged). Wait, 0.194 on training data is actually not that low , it means the soup is quite smoothed/regularized, not overfitting. That's expected for an averaged model and suggests good generalization (low variance). Good. Now let me validate the saved checkpoint thoroughly: 1. Load it back into build_model and check state_dict loads cleanly. 2. Check feat_mean/std, label_mean/std shapes (should be [3], [3], [1], [1] after squeeze , label squeeze of [1,1]? lm = Y.mean(0) has shape [1], squeeze → scalar []! That's a problem. Let me check. lm = Y.mean(0) where Y is [148,1], so Y.mean(0) = [1]. .squeeze() on a [1] tensor gives a 0-dim scalar tensor. The task says label_mean, label_std "length-1 tensors". A 0-dim scalar is not length-1. Let me check the shapes and fix to ensure they're length-1 (shape [1]) and length-3 (shape [3]). Similarly feat_mean = X.mean(dim=(0,1)) → shape [3], squeeze → [3] (fine, squeeze doesn't change [3]). feat_std repeat(3) → [3], squeeze [3] fine. label_mean [1].squeeze() → [] scalar. Need to keep as [1]. Let me verify and fix the save to use reshape(-1) or keep shape [1]. Let me inspect the saved file.
The final soup is saved. Train-set rel is 0.194 (not tiny), confirming the averaged model is well-regularized rather than overfit. Now let me rigorously validate the checkpoint , especially the tensor shapes, since squeezing a length-1 label tensor can collapse it to a 0-dim scalar.
bash
cd /app && python -c "
import torch
d=torch.load('/app/outputs/model.pt', weights_only=True)
print('keys:', list(d.keys()))
for k in ['feat_mean','feat_std','label_mean','label_std']:
    v=d[k]; print(f'{k}: shape={tuple(v.shape)} ndim={v.ndim} vals={v.tolist()}')
print('n state_dict tensors:', len(d['state_dict']))
"
output
keys: ['state_dict', 'feat_mean', 'feat_std', 'label_mean', 'label_std']
feat_mean: shape=(3,) ndim=1 vals=[-0.011780548840761185, 0.007426035590469837, -0.07198601961135864]
feat_std: shape=(3,) ndim=1 vals=[0.1860007345676422, 0.1860007345676422, 0.1860007345676422]
label_mean: shape=() ndim=0 vals=0.7487966418266296
label_std: shape=() ndim=0 vals=0.38614240288734436
n state_dict tensors: 41
As I suspected, label_mean and label_std are 0-dim scalars (shape ()), not length-1 tensors. The task requires "length-1 tensors". A 0-dim scalar might still broadcast correctly at inference (output [B,1] * scalar + scalar = [B,1]), so it would likely WORK. But to strictly follow the spec ("length-1 tensors"), I should make them shape [1]. feat_mean/std are correctly [3]. Let me fix the save code to use reshape(-1) for labels to guarantee shape [1], and feat to reshape(-1) for [3]. Let me patch build_final.py's save and re-save. Actually, rather than retrain (expensive), let me just fix the existing checkpoint in place by reshaping, OR re-run. Reshaping the existing file is fast and avoids retraining. But the model is already good. Let me just fix the shapes in the saved file directly. Actually, let me both fix the save code (for reproducibility) and fix the current file. Let me fix the current file directly to avoid retraining. Let me reshape label_mean/std to [1] and verify feat are [3]. But wait , I should double-check that the grading inference will work with my normalization. The inference: x_norm = (x - feat_mean)/feat_std. feat_mean [3], x [B,2048,3] → broadcasts over last dim. Good. Then model output [B,1]. Then pred = out * label_std + label_mean. With label_std/mean shape [1], out [B,1] * [1] → [B,1]. Good. Let me fix the checkpoint shapes and re-verify. Let me update the save code too.
The checkpoint works but `label_mean`/`label_std` are 0-dim scalars; the spec asks for length-1 tensors. Let me fix the save code to guarantee shapes [3] and [1], then re-save and verify a full inference round-trip exactly as the grader will run it.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: str_replace
path: /app/build_final.py
old_str:         payload={'state_dict':{k:v.cpu() for k,v in model.state_dict().items()},
                 'feat_mean':fm.squeeze().cpu(),'feat_std':fs.squeeze().cpu(),
                 'label_mean':lm.squeeze().cpu(),'label_std':ls.squeeze().cpu()}
new_str:         payload={'state_dict':{k:v.cpu() for k,v in model.state_dict().items()},
                 'feat_mean':fm.reshape(-1).cpu(),'feat_std':fs.reshape(-1).cpu(),
                 'label_mean':lm.reshape(-1).cpu(),'label_std':ls.reshape(-1).cpu()}
output
The file /app/build_final.py has been edited successfully.
bash
cd /app && python -c "
import torch
d=torch.load('/app/outputs/model.pt', weights_only=True)
d['label_mean']=d['label_mean'].reshape(-1)
d['label_std']=d['label_std'].reshape(-1)
d['feat_mean']=d['feat_mean'].reshape(-1)
d['feat_std']=d['feat_std'].reshape(-1)
torch.save(d,'/app/outputs/model.pt')
print('fixed shapes:')
for k in ['feat_mean','feat_std','label_mean','label_std']:
    print(' ',k, tuple(d[k].shape))
"
output
fixed shapes:
  feat_mean (3,)
  feat_std (3,)
  label_mean (1,)
  label_std (1,)
Now let me simulate the exact grader inference path (fresh `build_model`, `load_state_dict`, apply the normalization exactly as specified) and evaluate on all splits, including a float16 round-trip like the on-disk data:
bash
cd /app && python -c "
import torch, json, sys
sys.path.insert(0,'/app')
from candidate_model import build_model
cfg=json.load(open('/app/task_config.json'))
ckpt=torch.load('/app/outputs/model.pt', weights_only=True)
model=build_model(cfg)
missing,unexpected=model.load_state_dict(ckpt['state_dict'], strict=True)
print('load_state_dict strict OK; missing=',missing,'unexpected=',unexpected)
model.eval()
fm,fs=ckpt['feat_mean'],ckpt['feat_std']; lm,ls=ckpt['label_mean'],ckpt['label_std']

def rel(p,t): return (torch.norm(p-t)/torch.norm(t)).item()
def mae(p,t): return (p-t).abs().mean().item()
def mx(p,t): return (p-t).abs().max().item()

@torch.no_grad()
def ev(split):
    d=torch.load(f'/app/data/{split}/samples.pt', weights_only=True)
    # mimic on-disk float16 -> float32 load
    x=d['features'].float(); y=d['labels'].float().reshape(-1)
    xn=(x-fm)/fs
    out=model(xn)            # [B,1]
    pred=(out*ls+lm).reshape(-1)
    print(f'{split:12s} rel={rel(pred,y):.4f} mae={mae(pred,y):.4f} max={mx(pred,y):.4f}  n={len(y)}')

for s in ['train','val','public_test']: ev(s)
# shape contract check
xb=torch.randn(5,2048,3); 
with torch.no_grad(): o=model((xb-fm)/fs)
print('forward [5,2048,3] -> ', tuple(o.shape))
"
output
load_state_dict strict OK; missing= [] unexpected= []
train        rel=0.2022 mae=0.1353 max=0.5950  n=100
val          rel=0.1855 mae=0.1366 max=0.2992  n=32
public_test  rel=0.1539 mae=0.1008 max=0.3117  n=16
forward [5,2048,3] ->  (5, 1)
The final model (trained on all 148 including these splits) gives: - train: rel 0.2022, mae 0.135, max 0.595 - val: rel 0.1855, mae 0.137, max 0.299 - public_test: rel 0.1539, mae 0.101, max 0.312 These are on data it trained on (so optimistic), but the strict load works, shapes are correct, forward produces [B,1]. The max error on val/public_test is now much lower (0.30-0.31) than the holdout single-model runs. But these numbers are on training data , not a fair estimate of held-out performance. My honest held-out estimate is the CV (~0.24 rel) and holdout public_test (~0.235-0.26 for soup). So I expect the true held-out test rel L2 to be roughly 0.22-0.25. Now, the key remaining question: is the SOUP actually better than a well-chosen single model on truly held-out data? My holdout experiments were a bit ambiguous on rel (soup ~0.254 mean vs single ~0.246 mean on public_test), though soup had clearly lower variance and better worst-case. Let me reconsider whether I can do better. Let me make the decision more rigorous with a proper apples-to-apples CV comparison of soup vs single, using the cv_eval framework, but cheaply. Let me implement a soup option in exp.cv_eval and run it with a reduced config (e.g., 3 trajectories, shorter epochs) for 1-2 seeds to compare directly against single on identical folds. Actually, given time/token budget, let me think about whether there's a concern that the soup could be WORSE than single on the true test. The theory (model soups, Wortsman et al.) shows averaging same-init fine-tuned models usually matches or beats the best single model and improves robustness. My holdout showed comparable rel and better max/variance. So soup is a safe, robust choice. I'm confident it's at least as good as a single model in expectation and more robust. Given I get ONE shot, robustness is paramount. I'll keep the soup. However, let me reconsider the number of trajectories and whether I should also verify the soup on a TRUE holdout more carefully to make sure it's not underperforming. Let me do a clean comparison: Train soup on train+val (132), eval public_test (16) , I did: init 0 → 0.235. Train single on train+val, eval public_test , seeds 0-3: mean 0.246. So on public_test, soup init 0 (0.235) beats single mean (0.246). Good. But I worried soup inits 1,2 gave 0.260, 0.266. The init matters. For the FINAL model (trained on all 148), I used init 0. Is init 0 good? I can't directly validate on held-out since public_test is in training now. But init 0 was good on the 132→public_test holdout (0.235, best of inits 0/1/2). That's weak evidence init 0 is reasonable. To hedge init risk, let me reconsider: Can I make the soup more init-robust? One way: use MORE trajectories so the soup better represents the basin around that init. But it won't fix a bad init. Alternative hedge: Instead of picking one init, I could pick the init that performed best on the 132→public_test holdout (init 0), which I did. That's a reasonable selection. Actually, let me improve the init selection: run the 132→public_test holdout soup for a few more inits (3,4,5) and confirm init 0 is among the best, OR pick the best init and rebuild final on all-148 with that init. Let me quickly test inits 3,4,5 on holdout to see the distribution and confirm 0 is good. Actually wait , I should be careful not to overfit init selection to 16 public_test samples. But choosing among ~6 inits using 16 held-out samples is mild and reasonable. Let me gather inits 3,4,5. Hmm, but this is using public_test for selection, and then I train final on all-148 (incl public_test). The selected init's goodness was measured on public_test which then becomes training data. The concern: init goodness measured on public_test may not transfer to the true test. But init choice is a very low-dimensional selection (1 of 6), low overfitting risk. Let me gather a bit more evidence efficiently. Let me run holdout soup for inits 3,4,5 (each ~4 runs × 600 ep on …[truncated]
Strict load works, shapes satisfy the contract ([3],[3],[1],[1]), and forward maps [B,2048,3]→[B,1] correctly. Let me run calibration diagnostics to ensure predictions track labels across the full mass range with no systematic bias, and confirm robustness to the float16 storage path.
bash
cd /app && python -c "
import torch, json, sys
sys.path.insert(0,'/app')
from candidate_model import build_model
cfg=json.load(open('/app/task_config.json'))
ckpt=torch.load('/app/outputs/model.pt', weights_only=True)
model=build_model(cfg); model.load_state_dict(ckpt['state_dict']); model.eval()
fm,fs,lm,ls=ckpt['feat_mean'],ckpt['feat_std'],ckpt['label_mean'],ckpt['label_std']
X=[]; Y=[]
for s in ['train','val','public_test']:
    d=torch.load(f'/app/data/{s}/samples.pt', weights_only=True)
    X.append(d['features'].float()); Y.append(d['labels'].float().reshape(-1))
X=torch.cat(X); Y=torch.cat(Y)
with torch.no_grad():
    P=(model((X-fm)/fs)*ls+lm).reshape(-1)
print('pred range', P.min().item(), P.max().item(), 'label range', Y.min().item(), Y.max().item())
print('pred mean/std', P.mean().item(), P.std().item(), 'label mean/std', Y.mean().item(), Y.std().item())
print('corr', torch.corrcoef(torch.stack([P,Y]))[0,1].item())
print('NaN?', torch.isnan(P).any().item())
# per-tercile errors
idx=torch.argsort(Y)
for name,lo,hi in [('light',0,49),('mid',49,98),('heavy',98,148)]:
    sel=idx[lo:hi]; e=(P[sel]-Y[sel])
    print(f'{name:6s} meanlabel={Y[sel].mean():.3f} bias={e.mean():+.3f} mae={e.abs().mean():.3f} max={e.abs().max():.3f}')
# float16 path robustness
Xh=X.half().float()
with torch.no_grad(): Ph=(model((Xh-fm)/fs)*ls+lm).reshape(-1)
print('float16 round-trip max pred diff', (P-Ph).abs().max().item())
"
output
pred range 0.3768451511859894 1.9730932712554932 label range 0.1983642578125 2.21875
pred mean/std 0.800018310546875 0.33088767528533936 label mean/std 0.7487966418266296 0.38614240288734436
corr 0.9169065952301025
NaN? False
light  meanlabel=0.397 bias=+0.145 mae=0.147 max=0.308
mid    meanlabel=0.656 bias=+0.057 mae=0.117 max=0.595
heavy  meanlabel=1.185 bias=-0.046 mae=0.131 max=0.372
float16 round-trip max pred diff 0.0
Diagnostics: - Predictions correlate 0.917 with labels. Good. - No NaNs. - Float16 round-trip: 0 difference (robust). - Per-tercile bias: light samples have +0.145 bias (over-predicting light brackets), mid +0.057, heavy -0.046. So there's a systematic bias: the model over-predicts light brackets and slightly under-predicts heavy ones , classic regression-to-the-mean shrinkage. The light bucket bias (+0.145) is notable and drives MAE for light samples. This shrinkage is expected from MSE regression with limited data + heavy averaging (soup smooths). The light-bracket over-prediction (+0.145 on mean label 0.397, i.e., predicting ~0.54 for true 0.40) is a meaningful relative error. Can I reduce this bias? The regression-to-mean is partly because the model can't perfectly resolve the lightest brackets. A few options: 1. The bias might be partly from the heavy soup averaging shrinking predictions toward the mean. A less-shrunk model (single, or fewer trajectories) might have less bias but more variance. 2. I could correct the bias with an affine calibration , but the inference applies a FIXED affine (label_std, label_mean) that I control! I could fold a linear calibration into label_mean/label_std. If predictions p = a*y + b (biased), I want to output y. Currently output = raw*ls + lm. If I adjust ls and lm, I apply an affine to the whole output. A global affine calibration could reduce systematic shrinkage bias! Let me think. The model's de-normalized prediction is P = raw_out * ls + lm. Suppose the true relationship is approximately P ≈ alpha * Y + beta (with alpha<1 indicating shrinkage, beta>0). On training data, I can fit P vs Y and find the calibration that maps P back toward Y. Specifically, I want a corrected prediction P' = (P - beta)/alpha to undo the shrinkage. Since P = raw*ls + lm, then P' = (raw*ls + lm - beta)/alpha = raw*(ls/alpha) + (lm-beta)/alpha. So I can set ls' = ls/alpha and lm' = (lm - beta)/alpha. This folds the calibration into the label normalization constants , totally legal since those are applied at inference! But careful: fitting alpha, beta on training data (which the model was trained on) may overfit the calibration. However a global 2-parameter affine is low-risk and the shrinkage is a general phenomenon. Better to fit the calibration on HELD-OUT predictions (CV out-of-fold) to avoid the optimism of training-set fit. Actually, the shrinkage bias is best estimated from held-out predictions. Let me estimate alpha, beta from CV out-of-fold predictions (honest), then apply to the final model's label constants. This "debiasing"/calibration could improve all three metrics (reduces systematic bias → lower MAE, and reduces the light-bucket error → possibly lower max too). But wait , does de-shrinking help rel L2 / MSE? De-shrinking increases variance of predictions. If the model output is P = alpha*Y + beta + noise, then the MSE-optimal point prediction is exactly P (shrunk)! De-shrinking to undo alpha<1 would INCREASE MSE if the shrinkage reflects genuine uncertainty. Hmm. This is the classic bias-variance point: MSE-optimal predictions ARE shrunk toward the mean when there's irreducible uncertainty. So "correcting" the shrinkage would increase MSE/rel L2 on average, even though it reduces bias. But the metric is rel L2 (≈RMSE), which IS minimized by the shrunk (conditional-mean) predictor. So de-shrinking would HURT rel L2. However, MAE and max could behave differently. And if the shrinkage is due to the model underfitting (not genuine uncertainty), de-shrinking helps. This is subtle. Let me test empirically: estimate calibration from CV out-of-fold predictions and measure whether applying it improves CV metrics. If the out-of-fold calibration improves out-of-fold metrics, it's a real win (not overfitting). Let me do that. Plan: 1. Generate out-of-fold predictions on train+val using the soup (or single) config via CV. 2. Fit affine P' = a*P + c to minimize... which objective? For rel L2, fit …[truncated]
Predictions correlate 0.92 with labels and the float16 path is exact (0 diff). But there's systematic **shrinkage bias**: light brackets are over-predicted (+0.145) and heavy ones under-predicted (−0.046) , classic regression-to-the-mean. I can exploit the fact that the inference de-standardization (`out*label_std + label_mean`) is a *fixed affine I fully control*, so I can fold a global linear calibration directly into `label_mean`/`label_std`. But I must be careful: rel-L2/MSE is actually *minimized* by shrunk predictions when uncertainty is genuine, so de-shrinking could backfire. Let me decide this empirically using honest out-of-fold predictions rather than training-set fit.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: create
path: /app/calib.py
file_text: import exp, torch, sys, os
X=torch.cat([exp.TRX, exp.VAX],0); Y=torch.cat([exp.TRY, exp.VAY],0).reshape(-1)
swi = dict(lr=1e-3, epochs=600, bs=16, wd=1e-4, warmup=20, loss='mse', iso_norm=True,
           refl_x=True, refl_y=True, ema=0.0, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4)
N=X.shape[0]; k=5
seeds=tuple(int(s) for s in os.environ.get('SEEDS','0,1,2').split(','))
g=torch.Generator().manual_seed(12345)
P_accum=torch.zeros(N)
for seed in seeds:
    perm=torch.randperm(N, generator=g)
    preds=torch.zeros(N)
    for f in range(k):
        vi=perm[f::k]; mask=torch.ones(N,dtype=torch.bool); mask[vi]=False
        vp,_,_,_,_,_=exp.train_predict(swi, X[mask], Y[mask].reshape(-1,1), X[vi], seed=seed*100+f)
        preds[vi]=vp.reshape(-1)
    P_accum+=preds
P=P_accum/len(seeds)  # out-of-fold predictions (averaged over seeds)

def m(p):
    return ((torch.norm(p-Y)/torch.norm(Y)).item(), (p-Y).abs().mean().item(), (p-Y).abs().max().item())
print('raw OOF         rel/mae/max =', tuple(round(v,4) for v in m(P)))
# least-squares calibration Y ~ a*P + c  (optimal linear map for MSE / rel L2)
A=torch.stack([P, torch.ones_like(P)],1)
sol=torch.linalg.lstsq(A, Y.unsqueeze(1)).solution.reshape(-1)
a,c=sol[0].item(), sol[1].item()
Pc=a*P+c
print(f'affine a={a:.4f} c={c:.4f}')
print('calibrated OOF  rel/mae/max =', tuple(round(v,4) for v in m(Pc)))
# slope-only (scale about label mean) variant
ymean=Y.mean().item()
# robust: also report simple variance-matching
output
New file created successfully at /app/calib.py
bash
cd /app && timeout 295 env SEEDS=0,1,2 python calib.py 2>/dev/null
output
raw OOF         rel/mae/max = (0.2183, 0.1316, 0.7485)
affine a=0.9624 c=0.0203
calibrated OOF  rel/mae/max = (0.2175, 0.1319, 0.721)
The out-of-fold (honest) calibration analysis: - Raw OOF: rel 0.2183, mae 0.1316, max 0.7485 (averaging over 3 seeds reduces the OOF error vs single-seed , note this is lower than the 4-seed CV 0.2411 because here I AVERAGE predictions across seeds, which is itself an ensemble-like variance reduction). - Fitted affine: a=0.9624, c=0.0203. So Y ≈ 0.962*P + 0.020. This means the OOF predictions are only SLIGHTLY shrunk (a close to 1). The calibration barely changes anything: rel 0.2175 (tiny improvement from 0.2183), mae 0.1319 (tiny worse), max 0.721 (improvement from 0.749). So global affine calibration gives negligible improvement on rel/mae and a small max improvement. The a=0.962 (close to 1) confirms the OOF predictions are NOT heavily shrunk , the shrinkage I saw earlier (+0.145 light bias) was on the FINAL model's TRAINING data predictions, which is different (and the per-tercile bias there might reflect the soup's specific behavior, or just that light samples are genuinely harder). Wait, interesting , the earlier per-tercile bias was measured on the final soup model evaluated on its own training data, showing +0.145 light bias. But the honest OOF calibration says slope 0.962 (minimal shrinkage). The discrepancy: the per-tercile "bias" on training data includes the model's residual structure; the global affine only captures linear shrinkage, not the curvature (light over-pred + heavy under-pred around a near-unity slope could still have local biases that a single global slope doesn't fully fix). The key takeaway: a GLOBAL affine calibration gives negligible rel/mae benefit (a≈0.96, barely shrunk) but a modest max-error benefit (0.749→0.721). Since it's nearly a no-op and fitted on honest OOF data, applying a mild version is low-risk. But the benefit is tiny. Actually, the more interesting finding: averaging OOF predictions across 3 seeds gives rel 0.2183 , notably better than single-seed CV (~0.244). This confirms that ENSEMBLING/averaging reduces error substantially (0.244 → 0.218). This is exactly what the model soup does (averages trajectories)! So the soup SHOULD help rel L2, contradicting my earlier worry. The reason my holdout soup didn't clearly beat single on public_test was just noise in the 16-sample public_test. Wait , but prediction-averaging (averaging the OUTPUTS of 3 separately-trained models) is a true ensemble and clearly helps (0.218). The model SOUP (averaging WEIGHTS) approximates this but isn't identical. My holdout soup got ~0.235-0.266 on public_test. The OOF here (0.218) is on train+val (different set). Not directly comparable. Let me reconsider: can I do OUTPUT ensembling instead of weight soup? NO , the grader runs ONE model's forward. I can't average outputs of multiple models at inference. So weight-soup is my only option to bake ensembling into one checkpoint. Weight-soup approximates output-ensemble well when models are in the same basin (same init). Good. So the soup is well-justified. The calibration is nearly a no-op. Let me decide on calibration: - Benefit: max 0.749→0.721 (OOF), rel essentially unchanged. - Risk: minimal (a=0.96, c=0.02 is gentle, fitted on honest OOF). Given it's nearly a no-op with a slight max benefit, I could apply it. But the a,c fitted on train+val OOF may not perfectly match the final all-148 soup model's output scale. Applying a mismatched calibration could slightly hurt. Since the benefit is tiny (0.0008 rel), I'll consider whether to apply it. Actually, a cleaner idea: I should calibrate the FINAL model's outputs using its OWN out-of-fold-like predictions. But the final model trains on all data, so I can't get OOF for it. Alternatively, I can fit the calibration by comparing the final soup model's predictions on all 148 (training) vs labels , but that's training-set fit (optimistic, would give a closer to 1 and might overfit). The honest OOF slope 0.962 is a better estimate of the true shrinkage. But does the all-148 soup shrink the same as a 132-fo …[truncated]
The honest out-of-fold analysis is revealing: (1) the optimal global affine is `a=0.962, c=0.020` , essentially identity, so post-hoc de-shrinking gives negligible rel/mae gain (just a tiny max improvement), and (2) **averaging predictions across seeds cut OOF rel from ~0.244 to 0.218** , ensembling genuinely helps. Since the grader runs a single forward pass, my weight-soup is the way to bake that in. Let me verify directly that the same-init weight-soup reproduces this held-out benefit (vs a single trajectory) on the 132-sample pool, which is higher-powered than the 16-sample public_test.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: create
path: /app/soup_cv.py
file_text: import exp, torch, os
from candidate_model import build_model
import torch.nn.functional as F

X=torch.cat([exp.TRX, exp.VAX],0); Y=torch.cat([exp.TRY, exp.VAY],0)
cfg = dict(lr=1e-3, epochs=450, bs=16, wd=1e-4, warmup=20, loss='mse', iso_norm=True,
           refl_x=True, refl_y=True, ema=0.0, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4,
           swa_bn_passes=8, swa_bn_clean=True)
DEV=exp.DEV; CFG=exp.CFG
N=X.shape[0]; k=5
seeds=tuple(int(s) for s in os.environ.get('SEEDS','0').split(','))
RUNS=int(os.environ.get('RUNS','3'))

def norm(trx, Ysub):
    fm=trx.mean(dim=(0,1)); fs=trx.std().repeat(3).clamp_min(1e-6)
    lm=Ysub.mean(0); ls=Ysub.std(0).clamp_min(1e-6)
    return fm.to(DEV),fs.to(DEV),lm.to(DEV),ls.to(DEV)

def collect(trx, Ysub, fm_d,fs_d,lm_d,ls_d, init_seed, run_seed):
    import math
    torch.manual_seed(init_seed); model=build_model(CFG).to(DEV)
    g=torch.Generator(device=DEV).manual_seed(run_seed); torch.manual_seed(run_seed+1000)
    opt=torch.optim.AdamW(model.parameters(), lr=cfg['lr'], weight_decay=cfg['wd'])
    ep_t=cfg['epochs']; bs=cfg['bs']; warm=cfg['warmup']; ss=cfg['swa_start']; cyc=cfg['cyc_len']; hi=cfg['cyc_hi']
    def lr_at(ep):
        if ep<warm: return (ep+1)/warm
        if ep>=ss: t=((ep-ss)%cyc)/cyc; return hi*0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*t))
        p=(ep-warm)/max(1,(ss-warm)); p=min(p,1.0); return 0.5*(1+math.cos(math.pi*p))
    Xd=trx.to(DEV); Yd=Ysub.to(DEV); n=Xd.shape[0]; swa=None; sn=0
    for ep in range(ep_t):
        model.train()
        for gr in opt.param_groups: gr['lr']=cfg['lr']*lr_at(ep)
        perm=torch.randperm(n,device=DEV,generator=g)
        for s in range(0,n,bs):
            idx=perm[s:s+bs]; xb=exp.augment(Xd[idx],cfg); xb=(xb-fm_d)/fs_d; yb=(Yd[idx]-lm_d)/ls_d
            opt.zero_grad(set_to_none=True); loss=F.mse_loss(model(xb),yb); loss.backward()
            torch.nn.utils.clip_grad_norm_(model.parameters(),5.0); opt.step()
        if ep>=ss and ((ep-ss)%cyc)==cyc-1:
            with torch.no_grad():
                if swa is None: swa={k:v.detach().clone().float() for k,v in model.state_dict().items()}; sn=1
                else:
                    sn+=1
                    for kk,v in model.state_dict().items(): swa[kk].mul_((sn-1)/sn).add_(v.float()/sn)
    return swa

def finalize(state, trx, fm_d,fs_d):
    f=build_model(CFG).to(DEV); f.load_state_dict({k:v.to(DEV) for k,v in state.items()})
    Xd=trx.to(DEV); n=Xd.shape[0]; bs=cfg['bs']; f.train()
    with torch.no_grad():
        gg=torch.Generator(device=DEV).manual_seed(777)
        for _ in range(cfg['swa_bn_passes']):
            perm=torch.randperm(n,device=DEV,generator=gg)
            for s in range(0,n,bs): idx=perm[s:s+bs]; f((Xd[idx]-fm_d)/fs_d)
    f.eval(); return f

def m(p,y): return ((torch.norm(p-y)/torch.norm(y)).item(),(p-y).abs().mean().item(),(p-y).abs().max().item())

g0=torch.Generator().manual_seed(12345)
Ps=torch.zeros(N); Po=torch.zeros(N)
for seed in seeds:
    perm=torch.randperm(N,generator=g0)
    for fidx in range(k):
        vi=perm[fidx::k]; mask=torch.ones(N,dtype=torch.bool); mask[vi]=False
        trx=X[mask]; Ysub=Y[mask]; valx=X[vi].to(DEV)
        fm_d,fs_d,lm_d,ls_d=norm(trx,Ysub)
        states=[collect(trx,Ysub,fm_d,fs_d,lm_d,ls_d, init_seed=seed, run_seed=100+r) for r in range(RUNS)]
        # single = first trajectory
        fs_single=finalize(states[0],trx,fm_d,fs_d)
        with torch.no_grad(): Ps[vi]=(fs_single((valx-fm_d)/fs_d)*ls_d+lm_d).reshape(-1).cpu()
        # soup = average of RUNS trajectories
        soup={kk:sum(st[kk] for st in states)/len(states) for kk in states[0]}
        fs_soup=finalize(soup,trx,fm_d,fs_d)
        with torch.no_grad(): Po[vi]=(fs_soup((valx-fm_d)/fs_d)*ls_d+lm_d).reshape(-1).cpu()
Yv=Y.reshape(-1)
print(f'[seeds={seeds} runs={RUNS}] single OOF rel/mae/max =', tuple(round(v,4) for v in m(Ps,Yv)))
print(f'[seeds={seeds} runs={RUNS}] SOUP   OOF rel/mae/max =', tuple(round(
…[truncated]
output
New file created successfully at /app/soup_cv.py
bash
cd /app && timeout 295 env SEEDS=0 RUNS=3 python soup_cv.py 2>/dev/null
output
[seeds=(0,) runs=3] single OOF rel/mae/max = (0.2522, 0.1589, 0.7609)
[seeds=(0,) runs=3] SOUP   OOF rel/mae/max = (0.2843, 0.1788, 0.8265)
This is a critical finding! On a single seed's 5-fold OOF: - single trajectory: rel 0.2522, mae 0.1589, max 0.7609 - SOUP (3 trajectories, same init): rel 0.2843, mae 0.1788, max 0.8265 The SOUP is WORSE than single here! This contradicts my earlier holdout impression. With same init (seed 0), the 3 trajectories averaged produce a WORSE model than the single trajectory. Wait, this is concerning. Why would same-init weight-averaging hurt? Possibly because with the SAME init AND the cyclic warm restarts, the trajectories diverge to different parts of the basin, and averaging them lands in a worse spot. OR the issue is that all 3 runs share init seed 0 which might be a mediocre init, and averaging doesn't help. But hold on , this is just ONE seed (init 0), one fold split. High variance. The single-trajectory here (0.2522) vs my earlier 4-seed single CV (0.2439) , different because different seed/folds. And the soup here (0.2843) is bad. This suggests same-init weight soup is NOT reliably better and can be worse. My earlier holdout (soup inits 0-2: 0.235/0.260/0.266 vs single seeds: mean 0.246) was ambiguous/noisy. This is an important negative result. Let me reconsider. The model-soup premise (averaging same-init fine-tuned models) works best when models are fine-tuned from a SHARED PRETRAINED init with small LR (staying very close). Here, I train FROM SCRATCH with the same init but large LR and cyclic restarts , the trajectories diverge a LOT (random data order, augmentation, warm restarts), so they're NOT in a tight convex basin. Averaging divergent-from-scratch weights can land in a bad region. That's likely why the soup hurts. So weight-soup from-scratch is risky. The RELIABLE variance reduction came from OUTPUT-averaging (the calib.py OOF averaged 3 seeds' OUTPUTS → 0.218), which I CAN'T do at inference. Given this, the safest single-checkpoint choice is a SINGLE well-tuned cyclic-SWA trajectory (NOT a cross-trajectory soup). The within-trajectory SWA (averaging cyclic snapshots along ONE connected trajectory) DOES work reliably (that's standard SWA, and my CV showed cyclic-SWA single ~0.241-0.252). So I should REVERT the final model from the 8-trajectory soup to a SINGLE cyclic-SWA trajectory. That's the robust, validated choice. But then I'm back to the seed-variance problem for a single trajectory (public_test rel 0.195-0.285). Hmm. Wait, let me reconsider. The within-trajectory SWA already averages 15 cyclic snapshots , that's a form of weight-averaging along a CONNECTED path (consecutive cyclic minima are mode-connected), which is reliable. The single-trajectory cyclic-SWA IS my robust unit. The cross-trajectory soup is what's unreliable. So: final model = single cyclic-SWA trajectory trained on all 148 data. Seed variance remains but each trajectory's SWA is already internally averaged (lower variance than a single SGD endpoint). Let me quantify: in the 4-seed CV, cyc_i_30_long single gave 0.2411 mean. That's my honest estimate. The public_test holdout single runs gave mean 0.246. So ~0.24 expected. Now, how to pick the seed for the final single model? I can't validate the all-148 model. But I can pick a seed that does well on the train+val→public_test holdout (public_test truly held out), then retrain that seed on all-148. But seed goodness may not transfer. Alternatively, just use a fixed seed. Actually, let me reconsider: is there ANY reliable way to reduce single-model variance into one checkpoint? Within-trajectory SWA over MORE snapshots from a longer single trajectory , I showed 15 vs 20 plateaus. So limited. What about a LONGER single cosine (not cyclic) with SWA over a long tail? Similar. I think a single cyclic-SWA trajectory is the robust choice. Let me verify the soup is indeed worse with another seed to be sure (maybe seed 0 was unlucky for soup), before fully reverting. Let me run soup_cv with seed 1 quickly. Actually, the result was quite clearly worse (0.284 vs 0.252), unlikely to fli …[truncated]
Important negative result: the cross-trajectory **soup is actually *worse*** than a single trajectory here (rel 0.284 vs 0.252). Training from scratch with cyclic warm restarts makes trajectories diverge too far for weight-averaging to be safe , model soups rely on models staying in one tight basin (usual when fine-tuning from a shared pretrained init, not training from scratch). The reliable variance reduction earlier came from *output*-averaging, which I can't do at inference. Let me confirm this on a second seed before reverting to a single cyclic-SWA trajectory.
bash
cd /app && timeout 295 env SEEDS=1 RUNS=3 python soup_cv.py 2>/dev/null
output
[seeds=(1,) runs=3] single OOF rel/mae/max = (0.2494, 0.1512, 0.7922)
[seeds=(1,) runs=3] SOUP   OOF rel/mae/max = (0.3113, 0.201, 0.7459)
Confirmed on seed 1 too: - single: rel 0.2494, mae 0.1512, max 0.7922 - SOUP: rel 0.3113, mae 0.201, max 0.7459 The soup is clearly and consistently WORSE on rel and mae (though marginally better on max). Two seeds both show the from-scratch soup degrades rel/mae significantly. So the soup is a BAD choice for rel L2 (primary metric). Decision: REVERT to a SINGLE cyclic-SWA trajectory for the final model. This is the validated robust unit (4-seed CV ~0.241). Now I need to rebuild the final model as a single cyclic-SWA trajectory on all 148 data. Let me use build_final.py WITHOUT --soup (the train_full path, single trajectory). But seed choice: For a single trajectory, which seed? Let me pick via the public_test holdout (train on train+val, test public_test), choosing the seed with best public_test, then retrain on all-148 with that seed. I have single holdout results: seeds 0,1,2,3 → public_test rel 0.263, 0.285, 0.195, 0.242. Seed 2 (0.195) and seed 3 (0.242) are best. But choosing seed on 16 samples is noisy. Alternatively, use a seed-agnostic robust approach. Hmm. Actually, wait. Let me reconsider the calibration OOF finding: averaging 3 seeds' OUTPUTS gave 0.218. That's output-ensembling which I can't deploy. BUT , there's a subtle option: What if I deploy a SINGLE trajectory but pick the BEST seed by held-out performance? That's legitimate model selection. The risk is overfitting to 16 public_test samples. Let me think about the most robust single-model strategy: 1. Train single cyclic-SWA on all-148 with a FIXED seed (no selection). Expected rel ~0.24. 2. Train single cyclic-SWA on train+val, select best seed on public_test, retrain on all-148 with that seed. Might get lucky or overfit. Given the noise, option 1 (fixed seed, all data) is defensible and simple. But I'd like to reduce variance/risk. Alternative robust idea: Can I do within-trajectory SWA over a VERY long single cyclic run (e.g., 30+ snapshots)? Earlier 15 vs 20 plateaued for the MEAN, but more snapshots might reduce VARIANCE across seeds (even if mean plateaus). Let me reconsider , actually more snapshots along one trajectory reduces variance of that trajectory's estimate. Since consecutive cyclic snapshots ARE mode-connected (same trajectory), averaging more of them is safe and reduces variance. This is different from cross-trajectory soup. So a longer single trajectory with more cyclic snapshots could reduce seed-variance safely. But the snapshots within one trajectory are correlated, so variance reduction saturates. The 15→20 plateau in the MEAN suggests saturation. Variance across different SEEDS won't be fixed by more snapshots within one seed. OK here's my refined plan for the robust single model: - Use a single cyclic-SWA trajectory (validated, ~0.241 at 4-seed CV). - To pick the seed robustly without overfitting to 16 samples: I'll select the seed using the train+val→public_test holdout, but require the choice to be robust. Seeds 2 and 3 both did well (0.195, 0.242). Actually, let me reconsider: the grader evaluates on a DIFFERENT held-out set. A seed that's good on public_test (16 samples) has maybe weak correlation with performance on the true held-out set. The safest is to NOT overfit seed to public_test. Let me take a principled middle ground: Train the final single model on ALL 148 data with a fixed, arbitrary seed (say seed 0). Accept ~0.24 expected rel. This is simple and unbiased. But can I do better on variance? Let me reconsider whether the final-model-on-148 has lower variance than the 132-holdout because of more data. Possibly slightly. Alternatively , the BEST honest estimate I have is that a single cyclic-SWA gets ~0.24. Let me just build it well. Hmm, wait. Let me reconsider the output-ensemble one more time. I truly cannot output-ensemble at inference because the grader calls model.forward once. BUT what if the variance across seeds is largely in a single scalar bias/scale that I could calibrate out? Unlikely. Let …[truncated]
Confirmed on a second seed: the from-scratch soup consistently hurts rel/mae (0.311 vs 0.249). Model soups need models in one tight basin (fine-tuning from shared pretrained weights) , training from scratch with warm restarts violates that. The reliable gain came from *output*-ensembling, which the single-forward grader can't use. So the correct choice is a **single cyclic-SWA trajectory** (within-trajectory snapshot averaging along one connected path is safe and was validated at ~0.241). Let me rebuild the final model that way on all 148 samples, overwriting the soup.
bash
cd /app && timeout 200 python build_final.py --seed 0 --save 2>/dev/null | grep -E "training on|averaged|train-set|saved"
echo "--- verify shapes + strict reload + inference path ---"
python -c "
import torch, json, sys; sys.path.insert(0,'/app')
from candidate_model import build_model
cfg=json.load(open('/app/task_config.json')); d=torch.load('/app/outputs/model.pt', weights_only=True)
for k in ['feat_mean','feat_std','label_mean','label_std']: print(k, tuple(d[k].shape))
mdl=build_model(cfg); mdl.load_state_dict(d['state_dict'], strict=True); mdl.eval()
fm,fs,lm,ls=d['feat_mean'],d['feat_std'],d['label_mean'],d['label_std']
def rel(p,t): return (torch.norm(p-t)/torch.norm(t)).item()
for s in ['train','val','public_test']:
    z=torch.load(f'/app/data/{s}/samples.pt',weights_only=True); x=z['features'].float(); y=z['labels'].float().reshape(-1)
    with torch.no_grad(): p=(mdl((x-fm)/fs)*ls+lm).reshape(-1)
    print(f'{s:12s} rel={rel(p,y):.4f} mae={(p-y).abs().mean():.4f} max={(p-y).abs().max():.4f}')
"
output
[final] training on 148 samples seed=0 soup=False
[final] averaged 15 SWA snapshots
[final] train-set metrics: (0.11008505523204803, 0.07082955539226532, 0.31880342960357666)
[final] saved /app/outputs/model.pt
--- verify shapes + strict reload + inference path ---
feat_mean (3,)
feat_std (3,)
label_mean (1,)
label_std (1,)
train        rel=0.1080 mae=0.0720 max=0.3189
val          rel=0.1217 mae=0.0754 max=0.3037
public_test  rel=0.0945 mae=0.0541 max=0.1764
The single cyclic-SWA model on all-148: - train: rel 0.108, mae 0.072, max 0.319 - val: rel 0.122, mae 0.075, max 0.304 - public_test: rel 0.094, mae 0.054, max 0.176 These are all on data it trained on (optimistic). The single trajectory fits training data much better (rel 0.108) than the soup did (rel 0.194) , as expected, single is less smoothed. The honest held-out estimate remains ~0.24 from CV. Now, the concern: is this single seed-0 model a good draw? I can't validate on held-out (all data used). Let me reconsider whether to do seed selection to reduce risk. I'll use the honest train+val→public_test holdout to rank a handful of seeds, and pick a seed that is robustly good, then retrain on all-148 with it. The transfer concern exists but a good init is somewhat likely to remain decent. Given I have budget, let me gather holdout public_test for seeds 0-5 (single trajectory) and pick the best, then rebuild all-148 with that seed. Wait , I already have single holdout: seed0=0.263, seed1=0.285, seed2=0.195, seed3=0.242. Let me get seeds 4,5 too, then pick. But again, selecting on 16 samples is noisy. Alternative, more robust selection: run the single config in 5-fold CV on all-148 for several seeds and pick the seed with best CV rel. This uses all 148 for selection (more robust than 16-sample public_test). The selected seed's INIT transfers to the all-148 final model. Let me do that , it's the most principled seed selection available. Actually, even better: I realize I can reduce variance AND select well by a different approach. Let me reconsider... Given budget constraints (77k tokens, and each CV run is ~100-250s), let me be efficient. Let me run a seed selection: for seeds in {0,1,2,3,4,5}, compute 5-fold CV (1 seed each = the seed itself) rel on all-148, pick best. But "CV with seed s" uses s for both fold assignment and training. To isolate seed as training randomness, I should fix folds and vary only training seed. Let me fix the fold split (generator 12345) and vary the training seed per config. Hmm, this requires care. Let me simplify: I'll evaluate each candidate seed by running the single config across a FIXED 5-fold split, using that seed for training randomness, and compute pooled OOF rel. The seed with best OOF rel is chosen. Then retrain on all-148 with that seed. But the final all-148 model uses seed for (init + shuffle). In CV, the same seed gives same init but different data (fold subset). The init transfers. Reasonable. Cost: 6 seeds × 5 folds × 600 ep ≈ 30 × 25s = 750s. Too long for one call. Let me reduce: use 450 ep (cyc_i_30, validated 0.2439) and 4 seeds, or run in background. Actually, let me reconsider the value. Seed selection might gain ~0.01-0.02 rel but risks overfitting selection. Given time/budget, let me do a LIGHTER version: evaluate seeds 0,1,2,3 via the EXISTING holdout public_test numbers I already have (0.263, 0.285, 0.195, 0.242) PLUS get a second opinion from a quick all-148 CV for the top candidates. Honestly, the most defensible and time-efficient choice: keep seed 0 (already built), OR pick the seed that looked best on public_test holdout (seed 2) and rebuild. But seed 2's 0.195 on 16 samples could be luck. Let me make a robust decision: run a background job computing all-148 5-fold OOF rel for seeds 0,1,2,3 (fixed folds, vary training seed), using the 450-ep config for speed. Pick best, rebuild final on all-148 with that seed. Meanwhile that's the last major step. Let me write a seed-selection script. I'll fix folds with generator(12345), and for training seed use the candidate seed (affecting init + shuffle + aug). Compute pooled OOF rel/mae/max. Let me reuse exp.train_predict but it sets torch.manual_seed(seed) internally (init+shuffle+aug all from one seed). For fixed folds I control the split outside. For the training seed, I pass seed=candidate (same across folds? or candidate*100+fold?). To measure the effect of the INIT seed that will transfer to final, I wa …[truncated]
This single-trajectory model fits training well (rel 0.108) with the honest held-out estimate ~0.24. Since I can't validate the all-148 model directly, let me select the training seed robustly via all-148 5-fold OOF (132+ samples, far less noisy than the 16-sample public_test), using fixed folds and varying only the training seed. I'll run it in the background.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: create
path: /app/seed_select.py
file_text: import exp, torch, os
X=torch.cat([exp.TRX, exp.VAX, exp.PTX],0); Y=torch.cat([exp.TRY, exp.VAY, exp.PTY],0)
cfg = dict(lr=1e-3, epochs=600, bs=16, wd=1e-4, warmup=20, loss='mse', iso_norm=True,
           refl_x=True, refl_y=True, ema=0.0, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4,
           swa_bn_passes=8, swa_bn_clean=True)
N=X.shape[0]; k=5
g=torch.Generator().manual_seed(2024)
perm=torch.randperm(N, generator=g)  # FIXED folds across all candidates
cands=[int(s) for s in os.environ.get('CANDS','0,1,2,3').split(',')]
out=open('/app/seed_results.log','a')
def m(p,y): return ((torch.norm(p-y)/torch.norm(y)).item(),(p-y).abs().mean().item(),(p-y).abs().max().item())
Yv=Y.reshape(-1)
for cand in cands:
    preds=torch.zeros(N)
    for f in range(k):
        vi=perm[f::k]; mask=torch.ones(N,dtype=torch.bool); mask[vi]=False
        vp,_,_,_,_,_=exp.train_predict(cfg, X[mask], Y[mask], X[vi], seed=cand)
        preds[vi]=vp.reshape(-1)
    r,a,mx=m(preds,Yv)
    line=f'seed {cand}: all148 OOF rel={r:.4f} mae={a:.4f} max={mx:.4f}'
    print(line, flush=True); out.write(line+'\n'); out.flush()
out.close()
output
New file created successfully at /app/seed_select.py
bash
cd /app && rm -f seed_results.log && nohup env CANDS=0,1,2,3,4,5 python seed_select.py > seed_select.out 2>&1 &
echo "started seed selection pid $!"
output
started seed selection pid 1210
While that runs (6 seeds × 5 folds × 600ep ≈ 30 × 25s = 750s, ~13 min), let me reconsider the calibration question for the single model, and also reconsider whether I should revisit the shrinkage bias. Actually, let me reconsider the calibration with the proper honest approach for the SINGLE model: I can fit calibration on the all-148 OOF predictions (from seed_select, which computes OOF preds for each seed). The chosen seed's OOF predictions can be used to fit a calibration (a, c) honestly, then applied to the final all-148 model's label constants. This is the cleanest calibration: fit on honest OOF of the same config. But earlier calibration was near-identity (a=0.96). Let me see what the single-model OOF calibration looks like from seed_select results. I'll modify to also output the fitted calibration per seed. Actually let me not over-engineer; I'll compute calibration after selecting the seed, using that seed's OOF preds. Let me wait for seed_select and meanwhile think about whether there's anything else to improve. Actually, let me reconsider the bigger question of whether my config is truly optimal. I've established: - isotropic norm + x/y reflection + cyclic-SWA single trajectory: ~0.241 (4-seed CV on train+val), ~0.24 expected. - The max error ~0.74 in CV is the weak point. The honest OOF output-ensemble (3 seeds) got 0.218 , but I can't deploy that. One more legitimate idea to approximate output-ensembling in a single forward pass: NO, impossible with fixed forward. Let me reconsider the max-error. In CV, max ~0.74 comes from held-out heavy samples. In the final all-148 model, heavy samples are in training, so test max error should be lower IF test heavy samples resemble training ones. On public_test (in training now) max is 0.176. On a true held-out set, max depends on whether it contains novel heavy/unusual shapes. I can't do much more about genuinely novel test shapes. Let me make sure my model is as good as it can be on the config. I'm fairly confident. Let me wait for seed selection, pick the best seed, rebuild, optionally calibrate gently, and finalize. Let me also reconsider: should I use all 148 (incl public_test) or hold out public_test? Using all 148 gives more data → better generalization. Public_test was only a sanity check. I'll use all 148. The seed_select uses all 148 for OOF, which matches. Let me wait and poll seed_results. Let me wait ~270s.
Seed selection is running (6 seeds × 5 folds on all 148). While it runs, let me reason about calibration for the single model: I'll fit a gentle affine on the *chosen seed's honest OOF predictions* and fold it into the label constants only if it helps. Let me monitor progress.
bash
cd /app && sleep 280; cat seed_results.log 2>/dev/null; echo "--- running? ---"; ps aux|grep seed_select|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
seed 0: all148 OOF rel=0.2348 mae=0.1452 max=0.7090
seed 1: all148 OOF rel=0.2449 mae=0.1488 max=0.6967
seed 2: all148 OOF rel=0.2242 mae=0.1401 max=0.6034
--- running? ---
1
All-148 OOF (fixed folds, varying training seed): - seed 0: rel 0.2348, mae 0.1452, max 0.7090 - seed 1: rel 0.2449, mae 0.1488, max 0.6967 - seed 2: rel 0.2242, mae 0.1401, max 0.6034 ← best so far on all three! - seeds 3,4,5 pending. Seed 2 is best on all three metrics (rel 0.2242, mae 0.1401, max 0.6034). Interesting , seed 2 was also best on the public_test holdout (0.195). So seed 2 looks genuinely good (consistent across two different held-out evaluations: public_test AND all-148 OOF). That consistency increases confidence it's a good init, not just luck. Let me wait for seeds 3,4,5 to complete the picture, then pick the best. Note these OOF numbers (~0.22-0.24) are on all-148 with fixed folds. The final model trains on all 148 (no holdout), so it should do at least as well as OOF on similar test data. Let me wait ~250s for the remaining 3 seeds.
All-148 OOF results so far: **seed 2 is best on all three metrics** (rel 0.224, mae 0.140, max 0.603) , and it was also best on the independent public_test holdout, so its quality is corroborated across two different held-out evaluations (not just luck). Let me wait for the remaining seeds.
bash
cd /app && sleep 270; cat seed_results.log 2>/dev/null; echo "--- running? ---"; ps aux|grep seed_select|grep -v grep|wc -l
output
seed 0: all148 OOF rel=0.2348 mae=0.1452 max=0.7090
seed 1: all148 OOF rel=0.2449 mae=0.1488 max=0.6967
seed 2: all148 OOF rel=0.2242 mae=0.1401 max=0.6034
seed 3: all148 OOF rel=0.2364 mae=0.1493 max=0.6690
seed 4: all148 OOF rel=0.2489 mae=0.1483 max=0.7805
seed 5: all148 OOF rel=0.2477 mae=0.1501 max=0.7734
--- running? ---
0
All-148 OOF across 6 seeds: - seed 0: 0.2348 / 0.1452 / 0.7090 - seed 1: 0.2449 / 0.1488 / 0.6967 - seed 2: 0.2242 / 0.1401 / 0.6034 ← BEST on all three - seed 3: 0.2364 / 0.1493 / 0.6690 - seed 4: 0.2489 / 0.1483 / 0.7805 - seed 5: 0.2477 / 0.1501 / 0.7734 Seed 2 is clearly the best on ALL three metrics, and corroborated by the public_test holdout (0.195). This is strong, consistent evidence. Mean across seeds ~0.239, seed 2 at 0.224 is the best. Now, the question: does seed 2's quality (measured via OOF where seed 2 determines init+shuffle, trained on 4/5 folds) transfer to the final all-148 model (seed 2 init, trained on all 148)? The init is identical; training data is larger (148 vs ~118). The init seed 2 being good in OOF strongly suggests it's a good init for the final model too. And public_test holdout (train on 132, different data) ALSO showed seed 2 best , so seed 2's goodness transfers across data settings. High confidence. Let me rebuild the final model on all-148 with seed 2, and validate. I already have build_final.py; let me run --seed 2 --save. Then, let me consider the gentle calibration using seed 2's OOF predictions. Let me fit (a,c) on seed 2's OOF and see if it helps. But I'd need seed 2's OOF predictions saved. Let me regenerate them quickly OR fold calibration estimation into a final check. Given the earlier near-identity calibration (a=0.96), and that seed 2 OOF is already good, let me check calibration quickly on seed 2 OOF to decide. Actually, let me first rebuild with seed 2 (the main deliverable), validate shapes/inference, and THEN assess calibration as optional polish. Let me rebuild with seed 2.
Seed 2 is the clear winner on **all three metrics** (rel 0.224, mae 0.140, max 0.603), and its superiority is corroborated by the independent public_test holdout , strong evidence it's a genuinely good initialization, not noise. Since the init transfers to the all-148 model, let me rebuild the final checkpoint with seed 2.
bash
cd /app && timeout 200 python build_final.py --seed 2 --save 2>/dev/null | grep -E "training on|averaged|train-set|saved"
echo "--- validate ---"
python -c "
import torch, json, sys; sys.path.insert(0,'/app')
from candidate_model import build_model
cfg=json.load(open('/app/task_config.json')); d=torch.load('/app/outputs/model.pt', weights_only=True)
print('shapes:', {k:tuple(d[k].shape) for k in ['feat_mean','feat_std','label_mean','label_std']})
mdl=build_model(cfg); mdl.load_state_dict(d['state_dict'], strict=True); mdl.eval()
fm,fs,lm,ls=d['feat_mean'],d['feat_std'],d['label_mean'],d['label_std']
def rel(p,t): return (torch.norm(p-t)/torch.norm(t)).item()
for s in ['train','val','public_test']:
    z=torch.load(f'/app/data/{s}/samples.pt',weights_only=True); x=z['features'].float(); y=z['labels'].float().reshape(-1)
    with torch.no_grad(): p=(mdl((x-fm)/fs)*ls+lm).reshape(-1)
    print(f'{s:12s} rel={rel(p,y):.4f} mae={(p-y).abs().mean():.4f} max={(p-y).abs().max():.4f}')
print('label_mean/std vals:', lm.item(), ls.item())
"
output
[final] training on 148 samples seed=2 soup=False
[final] averaged 15 SWA snapshots
[final] train-set metrics: (0.0937693864107132, 0.06140053644776344, 0.2306135892868042)
[final] saved /app/outputs/model.pt
--- validate ---
shapes: {'feat_mean': (3,), 'feat_std': (3,), 'label_mean': (1,), 'label_std': (1,)}
train        rel=0.0932 mae=0.0626 max=0.1977
val          rel=0.1022 mae=0.0657 max=0.2307
public_test  rel=0.0749 mae=0.0454 max=0.1494
label_mean/std vals: 0.7487966418266296 0.38614240288734436
The final seed-2 model on all-148: - train: rel 0.0932, mae 0.0626, max 0.198 - val: rel 0.1022, mae 0.0657, max 0.231 - public_test: rel 0.0749, mae 0.0454, max 0.149 (All on training data now, so optimistic.) Shapes are correct, strict load works. Honest held-out estimate for seed 2: ~0.224 rel (from all-148 OOF). Now let me assess the gentle calibration as optional polish. Let me fit an affine on seed 2's OOF predictions and check if it improves OOF rel/mae/max. If it helps meaningfully and safely, I'll fold it into label constants. Let me regenerate seed 2 OOF predictions and fit. Actually, I can do this in one script: compute seed 2 OOF (fixed folds, same as seed_select), fit calibration, report raw vs calibrated OOF metrics. Let me write a quick script reusing the seed_select fold logic with seed 2 only, capture OOF preds, fit (a,c), and also test a variance-matching calibration. Then decide. Let me be efficient , this is one CV pass for seed 2 (~125s). Actually, I already have the OOF metrics for seed 2 (0.2242/0.1401/0.6034) but not the predictions themselves. Let me recompute and fit calibration. Let me reconsider the benefit ceiling. The earlier calibration on a 3-seed output-ensemble OOF gave a=0.962 and rel 0.2183→0.2175 (negligible). For a single seed-2 model, shrinkage might be slightly more. Let me just check. If calibration improves seed-2 OOF rel from 0.2242 to, say, <0.222, and doesn't worsen max, I'll apply it. Let me write the script.
The seed-2 checkpoint is saved and passes all contract checks (strict load, shapes [3]/[3]/[1]/[1], correct [B,1] output). Now let me evaluate the optional affine calibration honestly on seed-2's out-of-fold predictions , folding it into the label constants only if it genuinely helps without hurting the other metrics.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: create
path: /app/calib2.py
file_text: import exp, torch
X=torch.cat([exp.TRX, exp.VAX, exp.PTX],0); Y=torch.cat([exp.TRY, exp.VAY, exp.PTY],0)
cfg = dict(lr=1e-3, epochs=600, bs=16, wd=1e-4, warmup=20, loss='mse', iso_norm=True,
           refl_x=True, refl_y=True, ema=0.0, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4,
           swa_bn_passes=8, swa_bn_clean=True)
N=X.shape[0]; k=5
g=torch.Generator().manual_seed(2024); perm=torch.randperm(N, generator=g)  # same folds as seed_select
Yv=Y.reshape(-1); P=torch.zeros(N)
for f in range(k):
    vi=perm[f::k]; mask=torch.ones(N,dtype=torch.bool); mask[vi]=False
    vp,_,_,_,_,_=exp.train_predict(cfg, X[mask], Y[mask], X[vi], seed=2)
    P[vi]=vp.reshape(-1)
def m(p): return (round((torch.norm(p-Yv)/torch.norm(Yv)).item(),4), round((p-Yv).abs().mean().item(),4), round((p-Yv).abs().max().item(),4))
print('seed2 raw OOF        rel/mae/max =', m(P))
A=torch.stack([P, torch.ones_like(P)],1)
sol=torch.linalg.lstsq(A, Yv.unsqueeze(1)).solution.reshape(-1); a,c=sol[0].item(), sol[1].item()
print(f'LS affine a={a:.4f} c={c:.4f}')
print('seed2 calibrated OOF rel/mae/max =', m(a*P+c))
torch.save({'a':a,'c':c}, '/app/calib_ac.pt')
output
New file created successfully at /app/calib2.py
bash
cd /app && timeout 220 python calib2.py 2>/dev/null
output
seed2 raw OOF        rel/mae/max = (0.2291, 0.1424, 0.6797)
LS affine a=0.9813 c=-0.0454
seed2 calibrated OOF rel/mae/max = (0.2174, 0.1351, 0.679)
Seed 2 OOF calibration: - raw: rel 0.2291, mae 0.1424, max 0.6797 - LS affine a=0.9813, c=-0.0454 - calibrated: rel 0.2174, mae 0.1351, max 0.679 Wait , interesting! The calibration IMPROVED rel from 0.2291 to 0.2174 (a 5% relative improvement!) and mae from 0.1424 to 0.1351, with max essentially unchanged (0.6797→0.679). This is a meaningful improvement on the primary metric, fit on HONEST OOF data. Note: raw OOF here is 0.2291, slightly different from seed_select's 0.2242 for seed 2 , because different fold random seed (2024 vs the seed_select used 2024 too... wait, seed_select used generator(2024) and perm=randperm. calib2 uses the same generator(2024) and same perm. So folds are identical. But the result differs: 0.2291 vs 0.2242. Why? Oh , in seed_select, train_predict was called with seed=cand (seed=2) for all folds. In calib2, also seed=2 for all folds. Same config (600ep). Should be identical... unless there's nondeterminism (GPU, cuDNN, atomic ops). cuDNN conv1d backward can be nondeterministic. So there's run-to-run nondeterminism of ~0.005 rel. That explains 0.2291 vs 0.2242. This means even the "seed 2" final model has some nondeterminism. That's fine , it's small. More importantly: the calibration a=0.9813, c=-0.0454 consistently improves OOF rel (0.2291→0.2174) and mae, without hurting max. The affine found here (a=0.98, c=-0.045) is slightly different from before (a=0.962, c=0.020). The c=-0.045 shifts predictions DOWN slightly, and a=0.98 shrinks slightly. Hmm wait, the two calibrations disagree on sign of c (0.020 vs -0.045). That's concerning for robustness , the calibration parameters are somewhat unstable across runs/configs. The c differs because the models have slightly different bias. Applying a calibration fit on THIS OOF run to the FINAL model (different nondeterministic run) might not transfer perfectly, since the bias c is run-specific. Let me think carefully. The LS calibration Y ≈ a*P + c. If I apply it to the final model's predictions, it helps IF the final model has the same (a, c) relationship. The slope a (~0.96-0.98) is fairly consistent (shrinkage is systematic). The intercept c is less stable (-0.045 vs +0.020). Applying a wrong c adds a constant bias. A more robust calibration: only correct the SLOPE about the mean, keeping the mean prediction unbiased. I.e., P' = mean_P + a_s*(P - mean_P), choosing a_s to de-shrink. But the LS fit already does the optimal linear thing. Alternatively, apply a SHRUNK version of the calibration (half-strength) to hedge against overfitting the calibration: a_applied = 1 + 0.5*(a-1), c scaled similarly. This reduces risk. Actually, let me reconsider. The improvement (0.2291→0.2174) is real on honest OOF. But the instability of c across runs worries me. Let me test the calibration more robustly: fit on one OOF run, evaluate on a DIFFERENT OOF run (different nondeterminism or different fold seed). If it still improves, it's robust. Given budget, let me instead apply a conservative, robust calibration. The slope correction is the robust part. Let me reconsider what's driving the improvement: is it the slope (a) or intercept (c)? Let me decompose. Actually, let me just test applying the calibration to the FINAL model's predictions on the held-out-ish sets. But all sets are in training for the final model. Better: let me do a clean holdout test of calibration. Train on train+val (132), fit calibration on train+val OOF (inner CV), apply to public_test (truly held out), compare public_test metrics with/without calibration. This directly measures whether calibration helps on truly unseen data. But that's expensive (inner CV + holdout). Given budget, let me take a pragmatic, robust approach: apply a GENTLE calibration using the slope only, centered so it doesn't shift the mean much. Actually, the cleanest robust choice: average the two calibration estimates I have (a=0.962,c=0.020 and a=0.981,c=-0.045) → a≈0.97, c≈-0.012. Or just apply a mild slope de-s …[truncated]
Calibration on seed-2's honest OOF improves rel 0.229→0.217 and mae too (slope a≈0.98 de-shrink), but the intercept was unstable across runs (c flipped sign vs an earlier fit). A 2-parameter affine fit and evaluated on the same points is also mildly optimistic. Before trusting it, let me cross-fit: estimate the calibration on half the OOF points and evaluate on the held-out half, and compare against a robust mean-matching variant.
str_replace_based_edit_tool
command: create
path: /app/calib3.py
file_text: import exp, torch
X=torch.cat([exp.TRX, exp.VAX, exp.PTX],0); Y=torch.cat([exp.TRY, exp.VAY, exp.PTY],0)
cfg = dict(lr=1e-3, epochs=600, bs=16, wd=1e-4, warmup=20, loss='mse', iso_norm=True,
           refl_x=True, refl_y=True, ema=0.0, swa_start=150, cyc_len=30, cyc_hi=0.4,
           swa_bn_passes=8, swa_bn_clean=True)
N=X.shape[0]; k=5
g=torch.Generator().manual_seed(2024); perm=torch.randperm(N, generator=g)
Yv=Y.reshape(-1); P=torch.zeros(N)
for f in range(k):
    vi=perm[f::k]; mask=torch.ones(N,dtype=torch.bool); mask[vi]=False
    vp,_,_,_,_,_=exp.train_predict(cfg, X[mask], Y[mask], X[vi], seed=2)
    P[vi]=vp.reshape(-1)
torch.save({'P':P,'Y':Yv}, '/app/oof_seed2.pt')
def m(p,y): return (round((torch.norm(p-y)/torch.norm(y)).item(),4), round((p-y).abs().mean().item(),4), round((p-y).abs().max().item(),4))
print('RAW full OOF           ', m(P,Yv))
# cross-fit: fit on half A, eval on half B and vice versa, pool
gg=torch.Generator().manual_seed(7); pp=torch.randperm(N,generator=gg)
A_idx=pp[:N//2]; B_idx=pp[N//2:]
def fit(idx):
    Ai=torch.stack([P[idx], torch.ones(len(idx))],1)
    s=torch.linalg.lstsq(Ai, Yv[idx].unsqueeze(1)).solution.reshape(-1); return s[0].item(), s[1].item()
def fit_meanmatch(idx, a):
    return Yv[idx].mean().item() - a*P[idx].mean().item()
# LS cross-fit
aA,cA=fit(A_idx); aB,cB=fit(B_idx)
Pcf=P.clone(); Pcf[B_idx]=aA*P[B_idx]+cA; Pcf[A_idx]=aB*P[A_idx]+cB
print(f'LS cross-fit (aA={aA:.3f},aB={aB:.3f})', m(Pcf,Yv))
# mean-match slope-only cross-fit (a from fit, c=mean-match)
Pmm=P.clone()
cA2=fit_meanmatch(A_idx,aA); cB2=fit_meanmatch(B_idx,aB)
Pmm[B_idx]=aA*P[B_idx]+cA2; Pmm[A_idx]=aB*P[A_idx]+cB2
print(f'mean-match cross-fit   ', m(Pmm,Yv))
# conservative half-strength LS cross-fit
ah=1+0.5*(aA-1); Pc=P.clone()
aA_h=1+0.5*(aA-1); aB_h=1+0.5*(aB-1)
cA_h=fit_meanmatch(A_idx,aA_h); cB_h=fit_meanmatch(B_idx,aB_h)
Pc[B_idx]=aA_h*P[B_idx]+cA_h; Pc[A_idx]=aB_h*P[A_idx]+cB_h
print(f'half-strength meanmatch', m(Pc,Yv))
# full-data LS params to save
Af=torch.stack([P, torch.ones(N)],1); s=torch.linalg.lstsq(Af, Yv.unsqueeze(1)).solution.reshape(-1)
print(f'full-data LS a={s[0].item():.4f} c={s[1].item():.4f}')
output
New file created successfully at /app/calib3.py
bash
cd /app && timeout 240 python calib3.py 2>/dev/null
output
RAW full OOF            (0.2318, 0.1457, 0.6035)
LS cross-fit (aA=1.063,aB=0.901) (0.2301, 0.1433, 0.7433)
mean-match cross-fit    (0.2301, 0.1433, 0.7433)
half-strength meanmatch (0.226, 0.1412, 0.7038)
full-data LS a=0.9718 c=-0.0316
Now this is very informative and a reality check: - RAW full OOF: rel 0.2318, mae 0.1457, max 0.6035 - LS cross-fit: rel 0.2301, mae 0.1433, BUT max jumped to 0.7433 (worse!) - mean-match cross-fit: same as LS - half-strength meanmatch: rel 0.226, mae 0.1412, max 0.7038 Key observations: 1. The cross-fit slopes are UNSTABLE: aA=1.063 (half A says amplify!) vs aB=0.901 (half B says shrink). They disagree on even the DIRECTION of the slope correction! This means the slope correction does NOT robustly transfer , it's fitting noise. 2. Cross-fit calibration barely improves rel (0.2318→0.2301) but WORSENS max error significantly (0.6035→0.7433). That's bad for the max metric. 3. The earlier in-sample calibration improvement (0.229→0.217) was OPTIMISTIC , it was overfitting the 2 affine params to the same points. The honest cross-fit shows negligible rel gain and worse max. CONCLUSION: Calibration does NOT robustly help and HURTS the max-error metric. The instability of the slope (1.063 vs 0.901) confirms it's fitting noise. I should NOT apply calibration. The raw model is best and most robust. This is a great example of why cross-fitting/honest validation matters , the in-sample calibration looked good but doesn't generalize. So: NO calibration. Keep the final seed-2 model with label constants = all-148 statistics (the proper de-standardization). The raw OOF for seed 2 here is 0.2318 (this run), vs 0.2242 (seed_select run), vs 0.2291 (calib2 run) , spread ~0.007 due to cuDNN nondeterminism. So seed 2's honest OOF rel is ~0.225-0.232. Good. My final model is already saved (seed 2, no calibration). Let me do final verification: 1. Confirm the saved model is the seed-2 model (it is, I saved it last with --seed 2). 2. Verify all contract requirements once more. 3. Clean up and make sure /app/outputs/model.pt is the deliverable. Wait , I ran build_final.py --seed 2 --save BEFORE calib2/calib3. calib2/calib3 don't save the model (they only save OOF preds and calib_ac.pt). So /app/outputs/model.pt is still the seed-2 model. Good. But let me double check it wasn't overwritten. calib2.py saved to /app/calib_ac.pt, calib3 to /app/oof_seed2.pt. Neither touches /app/outputs/model.pt. Good. Let me reconsider: since nondeterminism means the saved seed-2 model is one particular draw (~0.224-0.232 OOF), and seed 2 was selected as best across multiple evaluations, this is a solid final model. However, there's a subtle point: the saved final model was trained on all-148 with seed 2, but due to cuDNN nondeterminism, it's a specific random draw that I haven't individually validated (I validated the seed-2 CONFIG via OOF). The saved model could be a slightly lucky or unlucky draw within seed 2's distribution. To reduce this, I could make training deterministic, but that might change performance. Given seed 2's config robustly performs well (~0.225 OOF across 3 independent runs), any single draw should be close. Let me do a final robustness consideration: Should I make the final model more robust by... no, I've decided single trajectory is best. The saved model is good. Actually, let me reconsider whether to retrain the final model a couple times (seed 2, different nondeterminism) and pick the best by... I can't validate on held-out (all data in training). So I can't pick. Just keep the one I have. Let me reconsider one thing: the train-set rel for the saved seed-2 model was 0.0938 (fits training well). Since it's trained on all 148 including val and public_test, and the OOF estimate is ~0.225, I expect the true held-out test rel to be around 0.22-0.25. This is substantially better than the linreg baseline (0.277) and the mean predictor (0.47). Let me also sanity-check that I haven't accidentally left the FINAL_CFG in a bad state and that build_final uses the single-trajectory path by default (no --soup). Yes. Let me do final cleanup and a last comprehensive validation of the deliverable, simulating the grader exactly, including edge cas …[truncated]
Critical insight from honest cross-fitting: the calibration slopes **disagree even in direction** across halves (aA=1.063 vs aB=0.901) , the affine was fitting noise. Cross-fit calibration gives negligible rel gain and **worsens the max error** (0.60→0.74). So the earlier in-sample gain was optimistic. **Decision: no calibration** , the raw model with proper all-148 label statistics is more robust. My saved checkpoint (seed 2, uncalibrated) stands. Let me run a final, thorough simulation of exactly how the grader will use the checkpoint, including batch-size edge cases.
bash
cd /app && python -c "
import torch, json, sys; sys.path.insert(0,'/app')
from candidate_model import build_model
cfg=json.load(open('/app/task_config.json'))
# Load EXACTLY as the task specifies
ckpt=torch.load('/app/outputs/model.pt', weights_only=True)
assert set(['state_dict','feat_mean','feat_std','label_mean','label_std']).issubset(ckpt.keys()), 'missing keys'
model=build_model(cfg)
model.load_state_dict(ckpt['state_dict'], strict=True)
model.eval()
fm,fs,lm,ls=ckpt['feat_mean'],ckpt['feat_std'],ckpt['label_mean'],ckpt['label_std']
print('key dtypes:', {k:ckpt[k].dtype for k in ['feat_mean','feat_std','label_mean','label_std']})
print('shapes:', {k:tuple(ckpt[k].shape) for k in ['feat_mean','feat_std','label_mean','label_std']})

# Edge cases: various batch sizes incl 1, and determinism in eval
for B in [1,2,16,50]:
    x=torch.randn(B,2048,3)
    with torch.no_grad():
        out=model((x-fm)/fs); pred=out*ls+lm
    assert out.shape==(B,1), out.shape
    assert torch.isfinite(pred).all()
print('batch-size edge cases OK (incl B=1); outputs finite, shape [B,1]')

# Determinism: same input twice -> identical (eval mode, BN uses running stats)
x=torch.randn(8,2048,3)
with torch.no_grad():
    a=model((x-fm)/fs); b=model((x-fm)/fs)
print('eval determinism max diff:', (a-b).abs().max().item())

# Permutation invariance sanity (architecture is max-pool based)
x=torch.randn(4,2048,3); perm=torch.randperm(2048)
with torch.no_grad():
    p1=model((x-fm)/fs); p2=model((x[:,perm,:]-fm)/fs)
print('point-permutation max pred diff:', (p1-p2).abs().max().item())
print('ALL CHECKS PASSED')
"
output
key dtypes: {'feat_mean': torch.float32, 'feat_std': torch.float32, 'label_mean': torch.float32, 'label_std': torch.float32}
shapes: {'feat_mean': (3,), 'feat_std': (3,), 'label_mean': (1,), 'label_std': (1,)}
batch-size edge cases OK (incl B=1); outputs finite, shape [B,1]
eval determinism max diff: 0.0
point-permutation max pred diff: 0.0
ALL CHECKS PASSED
All checks pass: - Keys present, correct dtypes (float32), correct shapes. - Strict load works. - Batch sizes 1, 2, 16, 50 all produce [B,1] finite outputs. - Eval determinism: identical outputs (BN uses running stats). - Permutation invariance: 0 diff (architecture is max-pool based, as expected). The model is solid and meets all contract requirements. Let me do a final summary of what I've built and clean up temp files (optional, but let me leave the useful scripts). Let me also do a final comparison table of the deliverable vs baselines to document the achievement. Let me reconsider if there's anything I'm missing: 1. The deliverable /app/outputs/model.pt is the seed-2 single cyclic-SWA model trained on all 148 labeled samples. ✓ 2. Contract: state_dict, feat_mean[3], feat_std[3], label_mean[1], label_std[1]. ✓ 3. Loads into candidate_model.build_model with strict=True. ✓ 4. Input [B,2048,3] → output [B,1]. ✓ 5. Normalization: isotropic feat standardization; label standardization with all-148 mean/std. ✓ Expected performance: honest OOF rel ~0.225, mae ~0.14, max ~0.60. This beats linreg baseline (0.277) and mean predictor (0.47). Let me reconsider , is there a risk that the grader applies normalization differently than I expect? The task says: "feat_mean, feat_std - length-3 tensors used to standardize the input coordinates before the forward pass. The same normalization is applied at inference time." and "label_mean, label_std ... used to standardize the target during training and de-standardize the model output at inference." So inference: pred_physical = model((x - feat_mean)/feat_std) * label_std + label_mean. That's exactly what I assumed and validated. ✓ I'm confident the deliverable is correct and good. Let me verify the final file one more time and its size, and that it's the seed-2 model (check a hash or the train metrics match). Let me also make sure I didn't leave the soup version. The last --save was --seed 2. Let me confirm by re-evaluating train rel (should be ~0.093). Let me do a final confirmation and write a brief summary. Let me also reconsider: should I retrain seed 2 a few times and keep the one with best OOF-config behavior? No , I can't validate individual all-148 draws. Seed 2 config is validated. Keep current. Actually, let me reconsider one subtle risk: the saved model is ONE nondeterministic draw of seed-2-on-all-148. What if this particular draw is unlucky? The config's OOF across 3 runs was 0.224/0.229/0.232 , tight. The all-148 final draw should be similarly good. To be safe, I could retrain 2-3 times and... but no validation. Alternatively, I can reduce nondeterminism risk by enabling deterministic mode so the result is reproducible and matches the validated seed-2 behavior. But deterministic cuDNN might be slower/different. Not necessary. I'm confident. Let me finalize. Let me verify the deliverable is the seed-2 model by checking train metrics match (~0.0938). Let me do the final check and summarize.
All grader-simulation checks pass: correct keys/dtypes/shapes, strict load, finite `[B,1]` outputs for every batch size (including B=1), deterministic in eval mode, and permutation-invariant as expected. Let me do a final confirmation that the saved file is the validated seed-2 model and summarize performance versus baselines.
bash
cd /app && ls -la outputs/model.pt && python -c "
import torch, json, sys; sys.path.insert(0,'/app')
from candidate_model import build_model
cfg=json.load(open('/app/task_config.json'))
d=torch.load('/app/outputs/model.pt', weights_only=True)
m=build_model(cfg); m.load_state_dict(d['state_dict']); m.eval()
fm,fs,lm,ls=d['feat_mean'],d['feat_std'],d['label_mean'],d['label_std']
def mm(p,t): return (round((torch.norm(p-t)/torch.norm(t)).item(),4),round((p-t).abs().mean().item(),4),round((p-t).abs().max().item(),4))
tr=torch.load('data/train/samples.pt',weights_only=True)
with torch.no_grad(): p=(m((tr['features'].float()-fm)/fs)*ls+lm).reshape(-1)
print('confirm saved==seed2 (train rel ~0.0938):', mm(p, tr['labels'].float().reshape(-1)))
print()
print('================ SUMMARY ================')
print('Deliverable: /app/outputs/model.pt  (single cyclic-SWA PointNet, seed 2, trained on all 148 labeled samples)')
print()
print('Honest held-out estimates (5-fold OOF on all 148, this config):')
print('  rel L2 ~ 0.225 | MAE ~ 0.140 | max-abs ~ 0.60')
print()
print('Baselines for context (matched CV / val):')
print('  mean predictor:         rel ~0.47')
print('  linreg on hand-features: rel ~0.277, mae ~0.181, max ~0.685')
"
output
-rw-r--r-- 1 h2tagent h2tagent 384685 Jun 21 00:08 outputs/model.pt
confirm saved==seed2 (train rel ~0.0938): (0.0932, 0.0626, 0.1977)

================ SUMMARY ================
Deliverable: /app/outputs/model.pt  (single cyclic-SWA PointNet, seed 2, trained on all 148 labeled samples)

Honest held-out estimates (5-fold OOF on all 148, this config):
  rel L2 ~ 0.225 | MAE ~ 0.140 | max-abs ~ 0.60

Baselines for context (matched CV / val):
  mean predictor:         rel ~0.47
  linreg on hand-features: rel ~0.277, mae ~0.181, max ~0.685
The deliverable is confirmed. The saved model matches the seed-2 model (train rel 0.0932). Let me write a brief summary of my approach and finalize. I've completed the task: 1. Explored data: SimJEB brackets, 100 train / 32 val / 16 public_test, mass 0.2-2.2 kg, isotropic normalization preserving shape. 2. Built honest CV evaluation (the key methodological choice). 3. Systematically swept: normalization (isotropic best with SWA), augmentation (x/y reflection helps, jitter hurts), loss (MSE best), optimization (cyclic-SWA >> EMA > plain). 4. Discovered from-scratch model soup HURTS (validated via OOF). 5. Selected seed 2 robustly via all-148 OOF (corroborated by public_test holdout). 6. Rejected calibration after honest cross-fitting showed it overfits and hurts max-error. 7. Trained final single cyclic-SWA model on all 148 labeled samples, seed 2. 8. Verified all contract requirements. The deliverable is at /app/outputs/model.pt and meets all requirements. Expected held-out rel L2 ~0.225, beating baselines. Let me do one final cleanup check , ensure the outputs directory is correct and there are no issues. The model is done. Actually, I realize I should double-check the output directory guidance. The task says write to /app/outputs/model.pt. I've done that. The note about /tmp/out says don't write there. I haven't. Good. I'm confident the task is complete. Let me provide a final summary to the user. Let me verify there's nothing else needed. The task is complete. Let me write a concise final message summarizing what I did and the expected performance. I don't think I need to make more function calls. Let me give the final summary. Actually, let me make sure the model file is intact and final by listing it once more , already did (384685 bytes). I'm done. Let me write the summary.
The deliverable is complete and verified. Here's a summary of what I built and why. ## Deliverable `/app/outputs/model.pt` , a single cyclic-SWA PointNet (the fixed `candidate_model` architecture, unchanged) trained on all 148 labeled samples. It contains `state_dict`, `feat_mean`/`feat_std` (shape `[3]`), and `label_mean`/`label_std` (shape `[1]`), and reloads with `strict=True`, mapping `[B,2048,3] → [B,1]`. ## Key findings that shaped the model - **Honest evaluation was essential.** Selecting the best epoch on the 32-sample val set looked great (rel ≈ 0.16) but collapsed on public_test (≈ 0.36). I switched to 5-fold cross-validation with fixed-schedule training (no peeking), which gave trustworthy, reproducible estimates and drove every decision. - **Optimization mattered most.** Cyclic-SWA (warm-restart snapshot averaging along one trajectory) clearly beat EMA and plain training (rel 0.24 vs 0.29+). Isotropic coordinate normalization + X/Y reflection augmentation helped (the clouds are near-symmetric about those planes, so reflections are mass-preserving and in-distribution); jitter, Huber, and larger batches hurt. - **I tested and rejected two tempting ideas using honest validation:** - A cross-trajectory *weight soup* consistently **worsened** rel/MAE (0.25→0.28–0.31). Training from scratch with warm restarts makes trajectories diverge too far for weight-averaging to be safe, and the reliable *output*-ensemble gain can't be deployed through the grader's single forward pass. - Affine *calibration* looked good in-sample (rel 0.229→0.217) but cross-fitting showed the slope flipped direction between data halves (1.06 vs 0.90) and it **worsened the worst-case error** (0.60→0.74). So I kept the raw model with proper all-148 label statistics. - **Seed selection was corroborated, not cherry-picked.** Seed 2 was best on all three metrics in all-148 OOF *and* independently best on the public_test holdout, so it reflects a genuinely good initialization rather than noise. ## Expected performance (honest 5-fold OOF) rel L2 ≈ **0.225**, MAE ≈ **0.14**, max-abs ≈ **0.60** , improving on the hand-feature linear-regression baseline (0.277 / 0.181 / 0.685) and the mean predictor (≈0.47) across all three metrics. One caveat worth stating plainly: the true grading set is separate, and with only ~150 labeled brackets there is irreducible single-model seed variance (roughly ±0.02 rel) and some risk on genuinely novel heavy/unusual geometries that drive the worst-case metric. I mitigated this with within-trajectory snapshot averaging, reflection augmentation, corroborated seed selection, and by training the final model on all available labeled data, but I did not try to hide it behind optimistic single-split numbers.
Final diff , what the agent changed

No file changes, the agent left the workspace untouched.

Verifier output , the proof behind the reward
tests/test.sh
# SyncVals normalized verifier summary
# task: simjeb-bracket-fea-mass-prediction-real
# attempt: 9  status: completed  raw_score: 0.48
# reward rule: continuous: score 0.48 < 0.5
# => reward = 0.0  (FAIL)
#
# Note: these tasks score via an external hidden grader; no pytest/verifier
# block is embedded in the agent transcript. The block below is the last
# sizable tool-output captured in the run (supporting evidence).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-rw-r--r-- 1 h2tagent h2tagent 384685 Jun 21 00:08 outputs/model.pt
confirm saved==seed2 (train rel ~0.0938): (0.0932, 0.0626, 0.1977)

================ SUMMARY ================
Deliverable: /app/outputs/model.pt  (single cyclic-SWA PointNet, seed 2, trained on all 148 labeled samples)

Honest held-out estimates (5-fold OOF on all 148, this config):
  rel L2 ~ 0.225 | MAE ~ 0.140 | max-abs ~ 0.60

Baselines for context (matched CV / val):
  mean predictor:         rel ~0.47
  linreg on hand-features: rel ~0.277, mae ~0.181, max ~0.685

Reproduce this trial: git checkout 2f94510 && PYTHONPATH=src python3 scripts/build_site.py , then open trial/trial_797d9f59d62b4ad6. Re-running the agent live requires EVAL_PLATFORM_ENABLE_OAUTH_SMOKE=1 and is non-deterministic.

Trial trial_797d9f59d62b4ad6 · verifier authoritative; classifier explanatory.