You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: CHANGELOG.md
+1Lines changed: 1 addition & 0 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ for versioning even while in research-stage development.
61
61
- Enhanced benchmark visuals with a compact combined overview figure (static + interactive) and linked it in README/dashboard for faster comparison.
62
62
- Added hardest-case dynamics GIF (training progression + inference decision-map evolution) and surfaced it near the top of README and docs dashboard.
63
63
- Added an interactive Plotly hardest-case dynamics page with playback controls and circadian internals visualization (node/edge weights, chemical/plasticity state) on the docs dashboard.
64
+
- Increased hardest-case difficulty substantially (higher drift/noise, lower phase-B train fraction, longer training horizon) and raised hidden-layer width in hardest-case runs for all three models.
64
65
- Refreshed README benchmark section with a latest master verification run on 2026-02-28 and added raw output artifact under `docs/benchmarks/`.
65
66
- Repositioned repository messaging to Circadian Predictive Coding as the primary focus.
- Dynamic capacity adaptation is observable and measurable (updated hardest-case: mean splits `27.57`, hidden size `24 -> 51.57`).
131
132
- Competitive behavior in moderate continual-shift stress tests with stable multi-seed performance.
132
133
133
134
Weaknesses:
134
135
135
136
- Not best on every benchmark; on the latest CIFAR-100 subset master check, predictive coding accuracy (`0.692`) was higher than circadian (`0.685`).
137
+
- In the updated ultra-hard hardest-case setting, predictive coding currently leads circadian on balanced score (`0.844` vs `0.831`), even though circadian still outperforms backprop (`0.785`).
136
138
- Extra algorithmic machinery (sleep scheduling, replay, split/prune controls) adds tuning burden and implementation complexity compared with fixed-width baselines.
137
139
- Speed overhead can appear depending on configuration; in the latest CIFAR-100 subset master check, circadian train speed (`874.2` SPS) was lower than predictive coding (`965.2` SPS).
138
140
- Results are regime-dependent; claims should be tied to specific benchmark settings and seeds instead of treated as universal.
@@ -195,7 +197,7 @@ Continual shift stress test (retention vs adaptation):
0 commit comments