tm-learning-tracks.md covers three things, all marked [FACT]/[INFERENCE]/
[UNKNOWN]:
- Section A: the Tsetlin gun's label is measured against the wrong baseline.
predX = linearX + cx, so rx = actual - predX = delta - cx, and inside
tmLearnOne error = residual - predicted = (delta - cx) - cx = delta - 2cx.
The fixed point is cx = delta/2 -- HALF the correction needed, even with
perfect Granmo feedback. Fix: store linearX/linearY in TmTrace and train
on delta. Also: hits zero the label instead of carrying their true
residual, and the per-clause step is magnitude-blind.
- Section B: what a TM is actually good at (AND-clauses over binary
literals, readable output) and why this repo suits it -- the gun already
builds an 83-bit x 10-frame Gray-coded window (870 bits). Includes a
falsifiable known-rule benchmark proposal.
- Section C: delayed-reward learning belongs to the MOVEMENT layer, not the
gun. The gun's outcome is delayed but exactly pairable via
(fireTick, powerBin), so its effective lambda is 1 and discounting would
only destroy information.
Also records that docs/papers/tm-deb-paper.pdf was deleted by the user as
AI-generated and unverifiable, while the Granmo-based feedback diff in
tm-deb-assessment.md stands on its own.
Verdict: the document (docs/papers/tm-deb-paper.pdf, 'Generated by
Gemini Notebook') solves temporal credit assignment under delayed
reward, which is not our problem. Our gun's failure is clause
saturation (~131 of 1740 literals included per clause -> conjunction
fires with probability ~2^-131 -> correction identically 0), and
TM-DEB only scales update FREQUENCY by gamma^dt, so it would leave
the fixed point untouched and additionally delete the long-range
feedback we need: gamma^90 = 4.4e-7 at the paper's own gamma=0.85,
and those are the shots whose lead matters most.
Credibility signals recorded in the doc: reference [2] misattributes
authors/venue/year; Algorithm Spec 2 steps 9-12 are literal '%'
placeholders so the automata update is simply absent; Table 1 is
titled 'Expected' and reports never-measured accuracies; Eq. 12 is
not a faithful copy of Granmo's Lemma 2.
The audit also produced the actionable result: a line-by-line diff of
Granmo Table 2/3 feedback against tmLearnOne, identifying why the
automata saturate - Type I never conditions on the clause output so it
omits Granmo's c=0, lk=1 -> -1 w.p. 1/s counter-force (true literals
ratchet toward Include), Type II's guard cOut==1 AND lits[lit]==0 is
unsatisfiable and therefore dead code, and the (T - clip(v,-T,T))/(2T)
resource allocation is missing entirely.
SirStone