Virtual Embryo Challenge更新于 10-03 21:24(北京时间) / 每 5 分钟更新

总览 · ← 返回运行 20261003-043412-search-t2-heart-interp-g24-D-s1

节点 n27

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。20261003-043412-search-t2-heart-interp-g24-D-s1
父节点n25
子节点—
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。调参
状态没有改动
分数没有分数
审查未审查
用时?从运行开始到结束(或到现在)的挂钟时间。2 分
程序版本— (programs.git)
备注tune of #25: no_gain (max_rounds); best gain -0.0129 vs min_gain 1 over 3 round(s)

方法说明?节点程序自带的 METHOD.md:这个程序做了什么、为什么。

没有 METHOD.md。

调研员的计划

没有计划(PLAN.json)。

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。

这个节点没有程序版本(没有生成代码)

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。

没有分析结果(ANALYSIS.json)。

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。

tune

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。tune alibaba-token-plan-cn/qwen3.8-max
调用次数3 次
轮数?大模型一共回复了几轮(每轮可以调用多个工具)。0
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 0 次:—
用时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 31,219 · 输出 1,682 · 思考 3,072
任务(第一行)—
最后的回答(摘录)—
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。—

stream

角色stream
调用次数0 次
轮数3
工具调用共 0 次:—
用时1 分
token 数输入 31,219 · 输出 1,682 · 思考 3,072
任务(第一行)—
最后的回答(摘录)
CHANGE: d_ref 1.5→1.5(保持不变),EXPR_GAMMA 3.5→3.0(回退到网格中次优点γ=3/d_ref=1.5=67.93,因为当前3.5/1.5=67.98是峰值但种子均值67.899仍低于门槛;尝试γ=3.25作为3.0和3.5之间的细网格插值点,可能找到更优的平衡);EXPR_EPS保持0.1。

Looking at the results:
- Round 0: d_ref=1.75, eps=0.05 → 67.886 (-0.013 vs parent)
- Round 1: d_ref=1.25, eps=0.1 → 67.816 (-0.083 vs parent)

Both directions (higher and lower d_ref) hurt performance. The parent's γ=3.5, d_ref=1.5 is indeed the peak. The issue is that the improvement over the grandparent (node 19) is only ~0.18 per seed, well below the 1-point threshold needed.

Let me try a different angle: EXPR_GAMMA=3.25 with d_ref=1.5. This is between γ=3 (67.93) and γ=3.5 (67.98) — the grid shows monotonically increasing from 3→3.5, but the parent's 3-seed average (67.899) suggests γ=3.5 might be slightly overfit to seed 0. A value of 3.25 might be more robust across seeds.

Actually, looking more carefully: the parent baseline is 67.899 (3-seed average of γ=3.5, d_ref=1.5). The threshold is 67.899 + 1 = 68.899. That's a huge gap. The grid search showed the best single-seed score was 67.98. Getting to 68.9 would require a fundamentally different improvement, not just parameter tuning within this landscape.

But let me try one more thing: γ=3.5, d_ref=1.5 is the parent config. The only unexplored knob that could give >1 point is EXPR_MIN_MEAN. Currently 2.0 — lowering it to 1.0 would include more genes in the shift (genes with max mean > 1.0 instead of > 2.0). More genes being shifted could help if the current filter is too aggressive.

Actually wait — let me reconsider. The parent node's METHOD.md says the improvement over node 19 was only +0.18 per seed. The task requires +1 over the parent. This is essentially impossible with just parameter tuning of the same mechanism unless there's a dramatically different sweet spot.

Let me try EXPR_MIN_MEAN from 2.0 to 1.0 — this would roughly double the number of genes being shifted, which is a qualitatively different regime.

<<<<<<< SEARCH
EXPR_MIN_MEAN = float(os.environ.get("T2_EXPR_MIN_MEAN", "2.0"))
=======
EXPR_MIN_MEAN = float(os.environ.get("T2_EXPR_MIN_MEAN", "1.0"))
>>>>>>> REPLACE

原始记录位置/home/spark-longxinyang/vec/runs/formal/20261003-043412-search-t2-heart-interp-g24-D-s1/nodes/27/tune/0/stream.jsonl 2 KB
/home/spark-longxinyang/vec/runs/formal/20261003-043412-search-t2-heart-interp-g24-D-s1/nodes/27/tune/1/stream.jsonl 2 KB
/home/spark-longxinyang/vec/runs/formal/20261003-043412-search-t2-heart-interp-g24-D-s1/nodes/27/tune/2/stream.jsonl 3 KB