This one-seed exploratory experiment tests whether the newly merged tools/snn cumulative-potential decoder can move matched Dale-constrained COBA and PING networks above the exp068–exp070 validation plateau on SHD. The screening ladder uses the same deterministic development-training / held-out-validation split as exp069 and exp070; the official SHD test remains sealed. Candidate one keeps the baseline 256-cell architecture and changes the classifier to --readout cumulative-potential --signed-readout. If that is finite, active, and promising, candidate two keeps the same decoder and tests two 256-cell hidden layers. Only the best short candidate may be promoted to forty epochs.
--readout-bias
/goal Design and execute the next exploratory SHD experiment on branch night/spiking-heidelberg-digits/ar071, using the newly merged tools/snn cumulative-potential readout additions to try to raise validation accuracy while keeping the comparison between matched Dale-constrained COBA and PING networks scientifically clean.
Start from updated main at merge commit 9527162d7a0ef80deac0e3f606ce513b9280ba6c. Do not modify main. Open a new draft PR for this experiment when the first meaningful commit is ready.
Scientific objective:
Run a one-seed exploratory validation-only ladder on SHD to identify whether stronger temporal readout and modest capacity changes materially improve matched COBA/PING learning beyond exp068-exp070.
Constraints:
- Use one seed only.
- Do not use the official SHD test set during exploratory screening.
- Use a held-out validation split from the training set for all selection decisions.
- Keep COBA and PING matched except for their registered cell-specific voltage-gradient dampening.
- Preserve matched input, readout, training split, optimizer, batch, and preprocessing settings across COBA and PING within each candidate.
- Use short runs first for iteration speed, targeting about 8-10 epochs per candidate.
- Promote only the most promising candidate to a 40-epoch validation run.
- Do not run multiple seeds unless a later claim is worth defending and I explicitly authorize it.
- RunPod spending requires explicit approval before pod creation; use at most one pod at a time unless separately authorized.
- Reap any pod when finished.
- Do not merge the PR.
- Avoid the full local test suite on the 4 GB Hetzner host; use focused checks and demolab build.
Candidate ladder:
1. Baseline architecture with the new signed cumulative-potential readout:
--readout cumulative-potential --signed-readout --readout-bias
2. If candidate 1 is finite, active, and improves validation learning, try modest increased capacity with two hidden layers, e.g. --n-hidden 256 256, keeping the same readout.
3. Optionally test one conservative recurrence/readout-adjacent setting if supported by existing tools/snn CLI and scientifically justified before seeing final results.
4. Promote the best candidate, if any, to a matched 40-epoch COBA/PING validation run.
Deliverables:
- Create the next numbered experiment, likely exp071, with artifacts under artifacts/data/exp071.
- Produce numbers.json, provenance, reproducer, training curves, firing-rate diagnostics, and matched input/E/I rasters where relevant.
- Write writings/exp071.typ as the canonical cold-readable experiment report.
- Include the goal prompt below the abstract and append timestamped activity-log/thread checkpoints in the experiment appendix, following the simplified SHD organization.
- Record scientific decisions, failures, anomalies, costs, commits, results, and pending work in the experiment article.
- Sanitize any publishable transcript/log content before committing.
- Build and validate with focused checks plus demolab build.
- Commit meaningful attempts, including killed attempts, with clear messages.
- Push branch night/spiking-heidelberg-digits/ar071 and update the new PR with evidence.
- Finish at the human review gate with a concise evidence summary, exact compute spend, validation performed, and links to the rendered exp071 file and PR.
Both cells use seed 42, the exp069/exp070 development split (7340 training utterances and 816 validation utterances), batch size 32, Adam learning rate 0.0004, 1 ms simulation steps, 1000 ms utterance windows, fixed Dale-constrained feed-forward/recurrent conductances, and identical input preprocessing. COBA disables the inhibitory loop and uses the engine’s no-dampening value; PING enables the inhibitory loop and uses voltage-gradient dampening 1000. These cell-specific settings are the only intended COBA/PING difference inside each candidate.
The readout is the new cumulative-potential decoder with signed abstract classifier weights and a trainable readout bias. The readout initialisation scale is one, not the old membrane-readout scale of 225, because that scale belonged to the prior output-LIF membrane recipe. COBA and PING are still matched exactly within each candidate.
| Order | Candidate | Short epochs | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Baseline 256-cell architecture plus cumulative-potential readout | 40 | registered |
| 2 | Two hidden layers, 256 cells each, same readout | 40 | conditional |
Candidate selection uses held-out validation accuracy and cross-entropy only. Training must remain finite, active, non-saturated, and free of skipped or non-finite updates. The official test file is not staged or loaded by the runner.
The current published attempt is #r.attempt at stage #r.stage. COBA selected 68.38% validation accuracy; PING selected 69.49%. Exact spend was 3.956 USD , with 0 active pods after collection.
This final forty-epoch promotion keeps the candidate-one architecture and readout. COBA selected epoch 36 at 68.38%, while PING selected epoch 38 at 69.49%. Both final cells were finite, active, clean, and produced matched rasters. In this one-seed validation run PING is ahead of COBA by 1.1 percentage points; this is exploratory validation evidence, not a defended multi-seed claim.
Timestamp: #trace.checkpoint_time_utc. Sanitized source hash prefix: #trace.sanitized_sha256_prefix. The log excludes hidden reasoning, tool payloads, credentials, private paths, environment values, addresses, and sensitive infrastructure details.
Role: user · Checkpoint: cp001 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
<codex_internal_context source="goal"> Continue working toward the active thread goal: design and execute the next exploratory SHD experiment on branch night/spiking-heidelberg-digits/ar071 using the newly merged cumulative-potential readout additions, with one seed, validation-only selection, local short runs before any promoted forty-epoch run, no official test use, explicit RunPod approval before spending, focused checks, artifacts under artifacts/data/exp071, writings/exp071.typ, timestamped activity checkpoints, commits, push, PR update, and no merge. </codex_internal_context>
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp001 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
I’ll pick this up from the actual repo state, keep the dirty article-consolidation work isolated, and start by setting up the exp071 branch/work area cleanly. First I’m running the lab manual hook, then I’ll inspect what’s already in place.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp001 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Because this goal includes opening/updating a PR, I’m using the GitHub workflow skill now; it’ll keep the GitHub side tidy and bounded.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp001 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
The main checkout has the older article-consolidation changes restored and dirty, so I’m not touching it. I’m making a separate Git worktree for night/spiking-heidelberg-digits/ar071; that gives exp071 a clean branch without risking those staged/unstaged edits.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp001 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
I’ve got the design shape now: exp071 can inherit exp069’s split, selection, validation-only test seal, rasters, and RunPod plumbing, while overriding only the candidate-specific readout/hidden sizes/epochs. I’m going to add the initial scaffold plus a pre-result artifact so the report builds before paid compute.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp001 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
One design decision I’m making explicit before results: candidate 1 uses the cumulative decoder with --signed-readout --readout-bias and a readout init scale of 1.0, not the old membrane-readout scale of 225. That scale was specific to the previous output-LIF membrane recipe; keeping it would be an unregistered hybrid rather than the clean new readout test. COBA/PING remain matched within each candidate.
Timestamp: #trace-two.checkpoint_time_utc. Sanitized source hash prefix: #trace-two.sanitized_sha256_prefix.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp002 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Pre-result artifacts published locally. I’m doing the light checks in increasing cost: Python compile, dry-run RunPod dispatch (no --live), then the local 128/128 two-epoch smoke if the cheap checks pass.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp002 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Cheap checks found one real scaffold nit—an unused import—while the RunPod path correctly dry-ran two pods and created nothing. I’m cleaning that import and then running the local smoke.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp002 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
The smoke exposed a useful plumbing bug, not a science failure: both cells trained finite/active, but my extra validation looked for hidden_sizes inside metrics.config, where this engine build stores only the legacy n_hidden. I’m tightening that check against config.json instead and recording this as a killed/debugging attempt before moving on.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp002 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Ruff and compile are clean now. Starting the second local smoke; still no cloud spend.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp002 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Local smoke passed: COBA and PING were both finite and active on the 128/128, 2-epoch gate. I’m promoting that from temp into the publishable pre-result artifact and adding a second timestamped checkpoint before build/commit.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp002 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Build caught a subtle artifact-publishing issue: my pre-result publish swapped the exp071 artifact directory and dropped the activity JSON files I’d just written. The site build protected itself by stubbing exp071. I’m fixing the artifact layout by restoring those JSON logs after publish and then rebuilding.
Timestamp: #trace-three.checkpoint_time_utc. Sanitized source hash prefix: #trace-three.sanitized_sha256_prefix.
Role: user · Checkpoint: cp003 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
you have permission
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp003 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Got it — I’ll treat that as explicit permission to start paid RunPod compute for the next registered short-screening step. I’ll still enforce the experiment’s one-pod-at-a-time constraint, so first I’m checking whether the current runner can dispatch only COBA or whether I need a tiny orchestration fix before spending.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp003 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Good catch from CI: exp071 added several ty diagnostics of its own, alongside the known old repo-wide ones. I’m fixing only the exp071-scoped issues and adding --only-cells support so live dispatch can obey the one-pod-at-a-time constraint.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp003 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Patch is in. I’m running focused validation now: ruff, py_compile, exp071-only ty, and dry-run dispatch for just COBA to prove it plans one pod.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp003 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Focused checks pass and the dry-run now plans exactly one pod for COBA. I’m committing/pushing this orchestration fix before live dispatch, because the pod will fetch from GitHub by pinned SHA.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp003 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Committed/pushed 11b0cdb. Now I’m starting the authorized live short-screening COBA pod only. After it fires, I’ll monitor/collect/reap before starting PING, preserving the one-pod rule.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp003 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
COBA live pod fired at pinned SHA 11b0cdb; one pod only. I’m logging that on PR #55, then I’ll monitor until it self-terminates before collecting and moving to PING.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp003 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Pod details show it was created at 11:36 UTC and is still desired-running; I’m not going to echo the raw detail payload because it contains sensitive provider fields. The runtime/cost is still small, but I’m treating this as a watch item now rather than passive waiting.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp003 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
No progress signal after the extra window, and SSH wasn’t available, so I’m stopping this COBA pod as a killed infrastructure attempt rather than burning more time/money. Then I’ll check billing and record the failed live attempt.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp003 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
The pod is stopped. The stop response includes sensitive provider env fields, so I’ll sanitize it out of all publishable records. I’m deleting the stopped pod now to fully reap it.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp003 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Both pods are deleted; active pod list is empty. Estimated exposure from timestamps is about $0.15 total, but RunPod’s per-pod billing endpoint has not reconciled those pod IDs yet, so I’m recording provider exact pending rather than pretending the estimate is exact.
Timestamp: #trace-four.checkpoint_time_utc. Sanitized source hash prefix: #trace-four.sanitized_sha256_prefix.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp004 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
The earlier hangup is pinned down: anonymous GHCR pulls were the likely culprit. I found the existing registry auth entry, confirmed the active pod list is empty, and I’m re-running the COBA short screen with authenticated image pull — still one pod only.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp004 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Much better: the authenticated COBA pod is running and visible. I’m polling it in short windows; if it finishes normally I’ll collect/reap and then start PING.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp004 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
COBA finished and self-terminated. I’m collecting the artifacts now; the collector itself is transient cloud compute, so I’ll also verify it reaps before launching PING.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp004 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
COBA short is collected: selected epoch 8 at 60.05% validation accuracy, finite/active, no skipped or non-finite updates, matched rasters present. Active pods are empty again, so I’m starting PING short now under the same authenticated path.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp004 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
PING is running cleanly now. I’ve also logged the COBA→PING handoff on PR #55. Next step is collection, then I’ll publish both curves/rasters into exp071 before moving to candidate two.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp004 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
PING finished and collected. Candidate one is now a real short-screen result: COBA 60.05%, PING 57.97%, both finite/active, both with rasters, no skipped/non-finite updates. I’m publishing those artifacts into the report and recording the spend as exact-provider-pending with the conservative timestamp estimate.
Timestamp: #trace-five.checkpoint_time_utc. Sanitized source hash prefix: #trace-five.sanitized_sha256_prefix.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp005 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
COBA candidate-two artifacts are collected and the collector reaped; active pod list is empty. I’m validating the collected COBA result before deciding whether to spend on PING for this candidate.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp005 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
COBA candidate two completed cleanly but weakly: best epoch 5 at 32.84% validation, E active around 71 Hz, no skipped/non-finite updates. Because the registered candidate comparison is matched COBA/PING, I’m still running PING candidate two before making the promotion decision; otherwise we’d be peeking on one cell and stopping asymmetrically.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp005 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
PING is healthy and actually a bit faster: epoch 2/8 is at 26.84% validation, E/I active, clean. ETA for PING completion is roughly 14–16 minutes.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp005 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
PING epoch 5/8 has reached 41.05%, clean and active. Better than COBA candidate two, still below candidate-one PING’s 57.97%. Three epochs to go.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp005 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
PING self-terminated and the active pod list is empty. Collecting candidate-two artifacts now.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp005 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
PING candidate two is collected and collector reaped; active pod list empty. I’m validating both candidate-two cells and then I’ll publish the short result into exp071.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp005 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Candidate two is published locally. I’m making the report compare both short candidates directly so the promotion decision is explicit rather than buried in raw JSON.
Timestamp: #trace-six.checkpoint_time_utc. Sanitized source hash prefix: #trace-six.sanitized_sha256_prefix.
Role: user · Checkpoint: cp006 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
status and eta?
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp006 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Status: COBA final40 is still running cleanly, one pod only. Latest sampled metrics were epoch 32/40: best validation 66.67% at epoch 29, no skipped/non-finite updates, active E rate. ETA for COBA training finish is roughly 13–15 minutes, then collection/reap probably another 2–4 minutes. After that I’ll start PING final40, likely ~60–70 minutes plus collection based on the short PING timing.
Role: user · Checkpoint: cp006 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
why didn't you run them in parallel?
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp006 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Because the active exp071 mandate explicitly says “at most one pod at a time” / “one-pod-at-a-time constraint,” and PR comments/logs are written around that constraint. I only launched PING after COBA completion for the short candidates, and I’m doing the same for final40. If you want to change that for future runs, I’d treat it as new authority/design change and log it before launching a second pod.
Role: user · Checkpoint: cp006 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
its okay to do them in parallel you have my permission
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp006 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Got it — I’ll treat that as explicit updated authority to run COBA and PING final40 concurrently from here. That changes the operational constraint, not the scientific design, so I’ll log the authorization on PR #55 and launch PING final40 while COBA continues, keeping total spend well below the $40 ceiling.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp006 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
COBA final40 is collected and valid: selected epoch 36 at 68.38%, final epoch 40 at 65.93%, clean, active, rasters present. PING is the only active pod now.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp006 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
PING has now edged ahead: epoch 36 best is 69.24%, clean/active. COBA selected 68.38%, so PING is +0.86 percentage points at this moment. Three epochs left.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp006 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Final40 validation is clean and collected: COBA selected 68.38% at epoch 36; PING selected 69.49% at epoch 38. Both final runs are finite/active/clean with rasters, and active pods are empty. I’m preparing the final artifact publish/report update now.
Timestamp: #trace-seven.checkpoint_time_utc. Sanitized source hash prefix: #trace-seven.sanitized_sha256_prefix.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp007 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Blocked on the one remaining external requirement: exact RunPod spend.
Fresh check:
- Active pods: `[]`
- Worktree/branch: clean on `night/spiking-heidelberg-digits/ar071`
- PR #55: open draft, green checks
- Latest by-pod billing:
- final40 COBA: `$1.1224509432`
- final40 COBA collector: `$0.0055998252`
- final40 PING: `$0.4491335023` and still changing
- final40 PING collector: still no billing row
- visible by-pod subtotal: `$3.2513860624`
Because the final PING billing is still moving and its collector is missing, I can’t honestly replace the conservative committed estimate (`$4.15`, `exact_provider_billing=false`) with an exact spend. Since this same provider-reconciliation blocker has repeated across the required goal continuations, I marked the goal `blocked`.
Everything scientific remains done/review-ready; the blocker is purely RunPod’s delayed billing reconciliation.
Role: user · Checkpoint: cp007 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
keep going you have permission
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp007 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Got it — I’ll resume from the billing gate and keep pushing until either RunPod reconciles or there’s another concrete in-scope move. First I’m refreshing the lab docs requirement, repo/PR state, active pods, and by-pod billing again.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp007 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Repo and PR are still clean/green. Now checking the provider billing again; if the final PING row has stopped advancing and collector appears, I’ll turn this into an exact ledger update.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp007 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
Nice, the billing rows have finally landed. The exp071 by-pod total is now `$3.9564816646` with no missing rows, and no active pods. I’m going to convert the experiment ledger/report from conservative estimate to exact provider billing and add the final timestamped checkpoint.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp007 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
I’ve got the exact spend source. Next I’m making the publication-side changes only: exact compute ledger, regenerated `numbers.json`, CP007 activity checkpoint, and the report wiring. No scientific result values should change.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp007 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
I’m keeping pod IDs out of the committed ledger and article; the exact dollar amounts and billed milliseconds are enough provenance without publishing infrastructure identifiers.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp007 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
The exact ledger publish step succeeded. I’m checking the artifact diff now because the runner republishes the current final40 view and may leave older short-screen/activity artifacts untouched or missing depending on the published-run helper.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp007 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
As expected, the publish helper replaced the artifact tree with the final40-only view. I’m restoring the previously committed short-screen/activity assets, then I’ll add the new CP007 file.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp007 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
I’m adding CP007 as a narrow, sanitized activity checkpoint: it records the user-visible continuation around the billing gate, the exact spend evidence, and the remaining actions. I’ll avoid publishing pod IDs/endpoints/paths.
Role: assistant · Checkpoint: cp007 · Session: exp071-continuation-redacted
I’m going to put the private raw checkpoint copy under `temp/`, which is not part of the publishable artifacts. Then I’ll use its SHA-256 prefix in CP007 and commit only the sanitized checkpoint.