Virtual Embryo Challenge更新于 10-03 18:47(北京时间) / 每 5 分钟更新

总览 · ← 返回运行 20261002-034201-search-t1-abc-r1-C-native

节点 n21

改了什么

运行?一次完整的自动搜索或 Agent 会话,有自己的锁定配置和证据包。20261002-034201-search-t1-abc-r1-C-native
父节点n13
子节点n24
操作?种子:人写的起点;改进:在父节点上改;草稿:从头写;修复:修父节点的报错。改进
状态已打分
分数搜索目标分 51.40(+0.6) · proxy 53.57(+0.1) · proxy2 53.57(+0.1) · X3 47.06(+1.7)
审查未审查
用时?从运行开始到结束(或到现在)的挂钟时间。6 分
程序版本ba15b1d7c07eefd550c2c4dd199783098d34078b (programs.git)

方法说明?节点程序自带的 METHOD.md:这个程序做了什么、为什么。

来自 programs.git ba15b1d7c0:solution/METHOD.md

改了什么

移除父节点新增的按类型均值平移(beta=0.1)及其伴随的稠密化操作。父节点 ANALYSIS 明确证明该操作使 covariation 从 51.96 降至 45.62(-6.34),且未改善 de_recovery(49.41→49.06)。回退后恢复纯加权抽样输出,预期 covariation 回到 ~51.96,整体榜分恢复到 ~51.4–51.75 水平。同时消除稠密化带来的内存(2.78GB→~1.26GB)和时间(4.0s→~1.5s)开销。

用到的知识与出处

父节点 13 ANALYSIS next_suggestions 第 1 条(回退按类型平移,恢复 covariation);父节点 13 effect_by_group 数据(covariation -6.34 远超噪声)。

调研员的计划

名称native r0: Change 1: Replace:
rows = rng.choice(last.n_obs, size=n_target, replace=True, p=weights)
X = last.X[rows]
动机OpenEvolve native generation (route C), parent 13, round 0 of 3, half-A score 51.4704
做法## 改了什么
移除父节点新增的按类型均值平移(beta=0.1)及其伴随的稠密化操作。父节点 ANALYSIS 明确证明该操作使 covariation 从 51.96 降至 45.62(-6.34),且未改善 de_recovery(49.41→49.06)。回退后恢复纯加权抽样输出,预期 covariation 回到 ~51.96,整体榜分恢复到 ~51.4–51.75 水平。同时消除稠密化带来的内存(2.78GB→~1.26GB)和时间(4.0s→~1.5s)开销。
## 用到的知识与出处
父节点 13 ANALYSIS next_suggestions 第 1 条(回退按类型平移,恢复 covariation);父节点 13 effect_by_group 数据(covariation -6.34 远超噪声)。

代码改动?这个节点的程序和父节点程序的逐行差别:绿色是新增,红色是删除。

对比:父节点版本 072ba208ee。改动的文件:solution/METHOD.md +2 −2、solution/run.py +0 −16

diff --git a/solution/METHOD.md b/solution/METHOD.mdindex 62765a2..5913d24 100644--- a/solution/METHOD.md+++ b/solution/METHOD.md@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ ## 改了什么-回退第 0 轮的噪声和权重改动(噪声严重破坏 covariation:51.96→34.41),恢复父节点权重(heart 1.6、reduced 0.15、gut 0.9)。在此基础上新增确定性按类型均值放大:对抽样后的每个细胞加 beta×(该类型均值−全局均值),beta=0.1。此操作是确定性的、按类型统一方向的平移,不引入随机噪声,因此保留类型内协方差结构;同时放大类型间差异基因信号,针对 de_recovery(父节点最弱分组 49.41)。+移除父节点新增的按类型均值平移(beta=0.1)及其伴随的稠密化操作。父节点 ANALYSIS 明确证明该操作使 covariation 从 51.96 降至 45.62(-6.34),且未改善 de_recovery(49.41→49.06)。回退后恢复纯加权抽样输出,预期 covariation 回到 ~51.96,整体榜分恢复到 ~51.4–51.75 水平。同时消除稠密化带来的内存(2.78GB→~1.26GB)和时间(4.0s→~1.5s)开销。 ## 用到的知识与出处-父节点 ANALYSIS next_suggestions 第 2 条(叠加保守扰动提升 de_recovery);方法卡 T1 平移幅度节(位移应收缩,beta=0.1 是保守收缩);第 0 轮实验证明随机噪声破坏 covariation,确定性按类型平移是更安全的替代。+父节点 13 ANALYSIS next_suggestions 第 1 条(回退按类型平移,恢复 covariation);父节点 13 effect_by_group 数据(covariation -6.34 远超噪声)。diff --git a/solution/run.py b/solution/run.pyindex 731157f..4710196 100644--- a/solution/run.py+++ b/solution/run.py@@ -77,22 +77,6 @@ def main() -> None:      rows = rng.choice(last.n_obs, size=n_target, replace=True, p=weights)     X = last.X[rows]--    if hasattr(X, "toarray"):-        X = X.toarray()-    X = np.asarray(X, dtype=np.float32)--    labels_arr = np.asarray(labels)-    sampled_labels = labels_arr[rows]-    global_mean = X.mean(axis=0)-    beta = 0.1-    for t in np.unique(sampled_labels):-        mask = sampled_labels == t-        if mask.sum() > 1:-            type_mean = X[mask].mean(axis=0)-            X[mask] += beta * (type_mean - global_mean)-    X = np.clip(X, 0.0, None)-     write_prediction(X, genes, args.out, seed=args.seed)  

调研来源?调研员查到并用到的知识条目和文献检索结果(只列标题和编号)。

没有记录调研来源。

分析结果?分析员写的 ANALYSIS.json:改了什么、各组分数怎么变、假设是否成立、经验和下一步建议。

改了什么回退父节点 13 新增的按类型均值平移(beta=0.1)及配套稠密化/clip 操作,恢复纯加权抽样后直接写出 X[rows](保持稀疏)。
各组分数的变化X3:噪声内偏正:47.06 vs 45.36(+1.70,略低于 2 分噪声)
cell_state:略变坏:51.23 vs 53.28(-2.05,刚超过 2 分噪声线)
covariation:明显变好:51.96 vs 45.62(+6.34,远超噪声,完全恢复到平移前水平)
de_recovery:噪声内:49.41 vs 49.06(+0.35)
direction:噪声内:53.15 vs 53.68(-0.53)
proxy:噪声内:53.57 vs 53.50(+0.07)
proxy2:噪声内:53.57 vs 53.50(+0.07)
假设是否成立是
经验
  1. 对抽样后矩阵做按类型均值平移(即使 beta 仅 0.1 且确定性)会使 covariation 掉约 6 分且不改善 de_recovery,回退后立即恢复——任何跨基因的整体平移都会破坏协方差结构。
  2. 稠密化(toarray + float32)纯粹是开销:移除后内存 2.78→1.26GB、耗时 4.0→1.2s,且不影响任何分组分数,应保持 X 稀疏直接写出。
  3. cell_state 在平移版为 53.28、回退版为 51.23(-2.05),说明按类型平移虽伤 covariation 但对 cell_state 有小幅正贡献,两类信号存在权衡。
  4. 回退后榜分 51.40 vs 父 50.79(+0.61)在 2 分噪声内,不能声称整体提升,只能确认 covariation 恢复。
下一步建议
  1. 针对 cell_state:不整体平移,改为只在标记基因子集(每类型 top-20 差异基因)上施加小幅放大(beta≤0.05),其余基因原样保留,以避开 covariation 破坏。
  2. 针对 de_recovery(最弱分组 49.41):改抽样权重而非改矩阵值,例如将各类型采样比例向目标类型分布对齐,验证权重 heart 1.6/reduced 0.15/gut 0.9 是否已饱和。
  3. 针对 X3(47.06,仍偏低):尝试对输出做轻度收缩(X * 0.95 + 行均值 * 0.05 之类的逐细胞缩放),逐细胞缩放不改变基因间相关性,理论上比整体平移安全,需用一次实验验证 covariation 不掉。

对话摘要?每个角色和大模型对话的统计:轮数、工具调用、用时、token 数和最后的回答摘录;原始记录只给路径。

只给统计和最后回答的摘录;完整对话请到原始记录位置里列出的文件看。

分析员

角色?调研员写计划、工程师改代码、分析员解读分数、审查员检查作弊。分析员 alibaba-token-plan-cn/qwen3.8-max
调用次数1 次
轮数?大模型一共回复了几轮(每轮可以调用多个工具)。3
工具调用?大模型调用读文件、执行命令等工具的次数,按工具名统计。共 2 次:bash 1、write 1
用时不到 1 分
token 数?输入 / 输出(含思考)的 token 数,来自接口返回的用量。输入 5,573 · 输出 878 · 思考 495
任务(第一行)分析节点 n21 的打分结果,写 ANALYSIS.json
最后的回答(摘录)
ANALYSIS.json written
原始记录位置?完整对话记录在 Spark 上的文件路径;看板不复制原始内容。/home/spark-longxinyang/vec/runs/formal/20261002-034201-search-t1-abc-r1-C-native/nodes/21/analyst.jsonl 6 KB
/home/spark-longxinyang/vec/runs/formal/20261002-034201-search-t1-abc-r1-C-native/nodes/21/analyst.stderr

native

角色native alibaba-token-plan-cn/qwen3.8-max
调用次数3 次
轮数0
工具调用共 0 次:—
用时4 分
token 数输入 64,656 · 输出 2,820 · 思考 9,121
任务(第一行)—
最后的回答(摘录)—
原始记录位置—

stream

角色stream
调用次数0 次
轮数3
工具调用共 0 次:—
用时4 分
token 数输入 64,656 · 输出 2,820 · 思考 9,121
任务(第一行)—
最后的回答(摘录)
Looking at the results across all rounds:

- **Round 0 (pure weighted sampling, replace=True)**: score 51.47, covariation 51.37, de_recovery 49.35, X3 47.31, proxy 53.55
- **Round 1 (stratified without replacement)**: score 51.13, covariation 50.99, de_recovery 48.89, X3 47.41, proxy 52.99
- **Attempt 1 (original best, weighted replace=True, weights 1.6/0.15/0.9)**: score 51.75, covariation 51.96, de_recovery 49.41, X3 47.06, proxy 53.57

The stratified approach hurt proxy/proxy2 (52.99 vs 53.55) and covariation (50.99 vs 51.37). The original weighted sampling with replacement was better. But the best ever was Attempt 1 with the same weights. The difference between Round 0 (51.47) and Attempt 1 (51.75) is within noise (~2 points).

Key insight: the weighted sampling with replacement (original approach) consistently outperforms stratified sampling on proxy/proxy2 and covariation. Let me revert to weighted sampling with replacement, but try slightly stronger heart upweighting (1.7) and slightly lower reduced (0.12) to push cell_state and direction higher while keeping covariation intact. The original weights 1.6/0.15/0.9 scored best overall. Let me keep those exact weights and use replace=True, which is the proven best configuration.

The only difference between Round 0 and Attempt 1 is random seed behavior - they should be identical. The 0.28 difference is noise. So I should just revert to the simple weighted sampling approach.

To add value beyond pure reversion, I'll add a subtle improvement: sample with replacement but use a **temperature-scaled** weight distribution that's slightly sharper, which should improve cell_state separation without touching expression values. Specifically, raise weights to a power slightly > 1 to sharpen composition differences.

Actually, let me be more careful. The data shows:
- Weights 1.6/0.15/0.9 → 51.75 (attempt 1), 51.47 (round 0) - noise range
- Weights 1.8/0.08/0.85 → 51.41 (attempt 2) - slightly worse
- Stratified → 51.13 - worse

The safest move is to revert to weighted sampling with replace=True at the original weights. To differentiate and potentially improve, I'll try a small tweak: use weights 1.65/0.13/0.92 (very slightly sharper than 1.6/0.15/0.9) which should marginally improve cell_state/direction without harming covariation much.

Actually, given noise is ~2 points, any small weight change is meaningless. Let me instead try something structurally different that could actually help: **keep weighted sampling with replacement** (proven best for covariation) but add **stratified sampling within each type** to ensure diversity within types is preserved even with replacement at the global level. This is a hybrid: sample the number of cells per type using weights (with replacement across types), then within each type sample without replacement.

Wait - that's essentially what Round 1 did and it was worse. The issue is that without-replacement within types reduces diversity when n_take is close to len(idx).

Let me just revert to the proven best: weighted sampling with replacement, original weights.

```diff
<<<<<<< SEARCH
    labels_arr = np.asarray(labels)
    unique_types = np.unique(labels_arr)

    type_info = []
    for t in unique_types:
        idx = np.where(labels_arr == t)[0]
        w = family_weight(str(t))
        type_info.append((idx, w))

    total_weighted = sum(len(idx) * w for idx, w in type_info)
    if total_weighted == 0:

(只摘前 40 行)

原始记录位置/home/spark-longxinyang/vec/runs/formal/20261002-034201-search-t1-abc-r1-C-native/nodes/21/native/0/stream.jsonl 3 KB
/home/spark-longxinyang/vec/runs/formal/20261002-034201-search-t1-abc-r1-C-native/nodes/21/native/1/stream.jsonl 4 KB
/home/spark-longxinyang/vec/runs/formal/20261002-034201-search-t1-abc-r1-C-native/nodes/21/native/2/stream.jsonl 6 KB