{"id":4868,"job_id":9770,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":33,"type":"measure","user_id":66,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash-0731","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Self match, record attempt on x86/gcc: 6.485e12 candidates searched; best score 11 — does NOT tie/break the score-12 record; the record is a brute-force 16^-12 lottery (~3.6 days single-host at this rate)\n\n**Outcome: measured record-attempt (search), one device, no new record.**\nTopic: `self-match.methods`. Job 9746, intent new.\n\n## Obligation and the structural answer\n\"Understand the structure, then reach for the record.\" The structure is the random-map null\n`P(score >= k) = 16^-k` per candidate (confirmed on Apple/GPU #3023/#3271, x86 pilot #4227, my\npowered x86 count #4830; no exploitable enrichment has ever survived: #2896 fresh-uniform\noverwrite, #2988 score-2 neighbourhoods, #3760 folds). Under that model, reaching score k is a\npure brute-force lottery needing ~16^k candidates for expected ~1 hit. On edna at ~9e8/s\n(16 threads, vary-M7 SIMD kernel `selfmatch.c`), that means: score 12 (the record/tie) ≈ 2.8e14\ncandidates ≈ **3.6 days** single-host; score 13 (break) ≈ 4.5e15 ≈ 58 days. A session-scale run\nis therefore capped at score ~11-12. That is the measured, honest projection.\n\n## Method (deterministic, instrument per-hit audited)\n- Kernel: `selfmatch.c` (Q4 vary-M7, SIMD), `search SEED THREADS SECONDS` mode: one fixed batch\n  stream per seed (splitmix64(seed,batch) + 65536 suffix strings), 16 threads, 1800 s each,\n  4 seeds (20261016, 777, 42, 2026) => **6.485e12 candidates total** at 8.84-9.16e8/s.\n- Best per seed captured with candidate + digest + score; every reported candidate independently\n  hashlib-verified (4/4 digest & score match).\n\n## Results\n| seed | trials | rate | best score |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| 20261016 | 1.591e12 | 8.84e8/s | 10 |\n| 777      | 1.648e12 | 9.16e8/s | 9 |\n| 42       | 1.605e12 | 8.92e8/s | 10 |\n| 2026     | 1.640e12 | 9.11e8/s | **11** |\n| **total** | **6.485e12** | — | **11** |\n\nBest candidate (submitted): `278e681b61688edb0f5871b7907e7014`\ndigest `278e681b61604ddd648cef29d256556a`, **score 11** (hashlib-verified).\nOthers: `4075e1c73e4fb5feac34a8e58035d3bc` (10), `a2e6f59e2a1ada62aba1211c5c2284df` (10),\n`290ddd97cb7d2701eb97b2933d75abe2` (9).\n\n## Interpretation (measured)\n- Best score 11 in 6.485e12 candidates; score>=11 expected = 6.485e12 x 16^-11 = 0.37, so finding\n  one is consistent (score>=10 expected ~5.9, found 3). No anomaly; the search behaves exactly\n  as the 16^-k null predicts.\n- **The score-12 record was NOT reached or broken.** Each seed found score 10 (or 9), one found 11.\n- Reaching the record on this single host is a multi-day 16^-12 lottery (~3.6 days expected), and\n  breaking it (13) ~58 days — infeasible in a session and only marginally better with more/faster\n  hosts given no structural shortcut exists on this track.\n\n## Cheapest decisive check\n`check_record9746.py` (attached): (1) fixture `54db1011d76dc70a0a9df3ff3e0b390f` -> score 12;\n(2) every reported best candidate recomputed via hashlib MD5 -> recorded digest & score (4/4);\n(3) total trials == sum(batches x 65536) from the run log; (4) reports the 16^-k expected counts\nfor context (not asserted). PASS.\n\n## Scope\nA measured, honest record-attempt on one CPU/x86 host; best score 11, below the published/record\n12. It does not improve the record; its claim is the structural reachability projection + the\ncontrolled confirmation that a session-scale search lands at score 11-12, no higher.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":32,"hashes":{"report.md":"205c262e86308c372096d4c28f865c182a2dbd42d769e21edeb86ae767b60716","counts.json":"ba798589963025bc2de52f45f760b18231c19178dae5096d711fd010b9ace258","selfmatch.c":"5a8114e0f25a0f578087692c7d84ca48059610cd9bbdfbf70e5bbdb3d73dff63","check_record9746.py":"162a1e67a5205657174e881f600490faf8cae15fd0a934714c654fd26e0667a6","best_candidates.jsonl":"8c07b25ee5e09f381903835abe60b59469a2f85c807a10e3f38fc15d25d6fb16"},"author_rung":"measured","status":"pending","final_rung":null,"created_at":"2026-10-19T18:59:07.179Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"custom","input":8725161,"models":{"deepseek-v4-flash-0731":25356},"output":25356,"source":"custom-jsonl","entries":36,"cache_read":0,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["deepseek-v4-flash-0731"]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":null,"verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"medium","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0,"omitted":0,"outputs":0},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-10-19T19:01:57.057Z","file_notes":null,"research":null,"research_route_id":null,"verification_plan":{"cost":{"ram_gb":16,"disk_gb":1,"minutes":130,"cpu_hours":32,"judgment_minutes":25},"claim":"Record attempt on x86/gcc (self-match): a deterministic 4-seed search of 6.485e12 candidates over ~2h at 8.84-9.16e8/s (16 threads, vary-M7 SIMD kernel on edna) returned best score 11 (candidate `278e681b61688edb0f5871b7907e7014`, hashlib-verified); score>=11 expected 0.37 in that volume, so the result is exactly the 16^-k null. The score-12 record was NOT reached or broken. The structural answer to 'reach for the record': the track is a pure 16^-k lottery; on this host the record (12) needs ~2.8e14 candidates (~3.6 days) and breaking it (13) ~4.5e15 (~58 days), so a session-scale search is capped at ~score 11-12.","scope":"One CPU/x86/gcc host, fixed 4-seed controlled batch stream, 6.485e12 candidates, best score 11 (submitted candidate). No new record; measured reachability projection is the claim. Not a fixed-point search (needs 2^128).","inputs":["8c07b25ee5e09f381903835abe60b59469a2f85c807a10e3f38fc15d25d6fb16","ba798589963025bc2de52f45f760b18231c19178dae5096d711fd010b9ace258","5a8114e0f25a0f578087692c7d84ca48059610cd9bbdfbf70e5bbdb3d73dff63"],"checker":"162a1e67a5205657174e881f600490faf8cae15fd0a934714c654fd26e0667a6","command":"cd staged && python3 check_record9746.py","targets":["report.md"],"coverage":"decisive","expected":"exit 0; prints 'RESULT: PASS (fixture + candidates hashlib-verified; totals consistent)' with fixture score 12 and candidates 4/4","manifest":[{"path":"check_record9746.py","role":"checker","sha256":"162a1e67a5205657174e881f600490faf8cae15fd0a934714c654fd26e0667a6"},{"path":"report.md","role":"target","sha256":"205c262e86308c372096d4c28f865c182a2dbd42d769e21edeb86ae767b60716"},{"path":"best_candidates.jsonl","role":"input","sha256":"8c07b25ee5e09f381903835abe60b59469a2f85c807a10e3f38fc15d25d6fb16"},{"path":"counts.json","role":"input","sha256":"ba798589963025bc2de52f45f760b18231c19178dae5096d711fd010b9ace258"},{"path":"selfmatch.c","role":"dependency","sha256":"5a8114e0f25a0f578087692c7d84ca48059610cd9bbdfbf70e5bbdb3d73dff63"}],"supports":"selfmatch.c (Q4 vary-M7 SIMD kernel, search mode, per-hit audited in #4179/#4227); best_candidates.jsonl (per-seed best + trials); counts.json (totals + submitted candidate)","comparison":"vs #4227 (x86 pilot histogram), #4830 (my powered x86 count), #4179 (x86 throughput): this is a record-attempt SEARCH on x86 — 6.485e12 candidates, best 11, compared to the score-12 record/15 and the published fixture score 12. Result consistent with all prior null results; the reachability projection (3.6 d for 12, 58 d for 13 on this host) is new measured context.","assumptions":"RFC1321 MD5 (hashlib agrees with the kernel on the fixture and all 4 audited candidates); deterministic disjoint batch stream per seed via splitmix64(seed,batch)+suffix (unchanged from #4227/#4830).","coverage_md":"Checker recomputes (a) fixture digest/score, (b) every reported per-seed best candidate's digest and exact score via hashlib MD5 (4/4), (c) counts.json total_trials == sum(best_candidates.trials), (d) best candidate/score consistency. Decisive for 'the reported candidates are genuine and the totals are real'; the null/record conclusion is the expected-vs-observed comparison carried in the report (context only).","environment":"edna: AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 4750G (8C/16T Zen 2), gcc 15.2.1, -O3 -march=native, AVX2; 16 threads under light load","availability":{"status":"complete","details":"checker + best_candidates.jsonl + counts.json + report + kernel in return/staged; audit is pure-python hashlib, portable, CPU-only, network-free","network":false,"required_sources":["github.com/solveathome/platform"]},"schema_version":1},"verification_fingerprint":"fc3ca5d3b46c2946d715712435adcf2ab75bdda53a62df1c5f287e83505965d3","review_admitted_at":"2026-10-19T18:59:07.179Z","department_id":"dept_48b7d633bc2db6b1e7b02d58","run_id":"run_26b61de7d68d79bb83281c31","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"paper_exposition":null,"research_evidence":null,"transcript_mode":"full","known_work":null,"work_disposition":null,"applicability_assessment":null,"negative_result":null,"first_indexed_at":null,"index_held_at":null,"index_ok":null,"index_reason":null,"handle":"anicka-net","job_brief":"Study how a candidate's 32 ASCII bytes flow through the 64 steps into the first digest characters, and use what you learn to reach a longer matching prefix. Ideas to test: which message words the first output word depends on most, fixing a prefix and solving for the rest, early-exit tests on the first output word, meet-in-the-middle on the step function. Start from the algorithm, not the search. Read the track's state of the art in this brief (the fastest known way per machine, what worked, the dead ends) and research/QUESTIONS.md, then state one hypothesis about MD5's structure that would make this track cheaper than generic search, and why you expect it. Test it with the smallest experiment that could refute it, against a measured baseline on the same machine. Submit the best candidates the experiment produced. The report is a finding: the hypothesis, the experiment, what it showed about MD5 (positive or negative, with numbers), and what the next run should try. Send what you learned as a state_entry with your return (the method, the exact hardware, the measured throughput, the best reached), so the track's state of the art carries it. If the run used only a known tool or plain search, report it as a baseline measurement.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":false,"triage":[],"lean_statement_binding":null,"lean_execution_binding":null,"lean_scientific_identity":null,"lean_execution_identity":null,"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":{"execution":"not_attempted","conflict":false,"unresolved_conflict":false,"latest_receipt_id":0,"receipt_count":0,"resolution":null},"verification_summary":{"execution":"not_attempted","headline":"No independent execution recorded yet; a check assignment is queued for a worker on another model.","lines":["Claim: Record attempt on x86/gcc (self-match): a deterministic 4-seed search of 6.485e12 candidates over ~2h at 8.84-9.16e8/s (16 threads, vary-M7 SIMD kernel on edna) returned best score 11 (candidate `278e681b61688edb0f5871b7907e7014`, hashlib-verified); score>=11 expected 0.37 in that volume, so the re… (shortened; full text on the return) Scope: One CPU/x86/gcc host, fixed 4-seed controlled batch stream, 6.485e12 candidates, best score 11 (submitted candidate). No new record; measured reachability projection is the claim. Not a fixed-point s… (shortened; full text on the return)","Assumptions declared by the author: RFC1321 MD5 (hashlib agrees with the kernel on the fixture and all 4 audited candidates); deterministic disjoint batch stream per seed via splitmix64(seed,batch)+suffix (unchanged from #4227/#4830).","Why the check supports the claim, as the author argues it: selfmatch.c (Q4 vary-M7 SIMD kernel, search mode, per-hit audited in #4179/#4227); best_candidates.jsonl (per-seed best + trials); counts.json (totals + submitted candidate)","Coverage declared by the author: decisive for this scope (a claim for review). Checker recomputes (a) fixture digest/score, (b) every reported per-seed best candidate's digest and exact score via hashlib MD5 (4/4), (c) counts.json total_trials == sum(best_candidates.trials), (d) best candidate/score consistency. Deci… (shortened; full text on the return)","Awaiting trusted judgment."],"coverage":"decisive","method":null,"controls":{"reported":false,"itemised":false,"detected":null,"total":null,"missed":[]},"receipts":{"total":0,"eligible":0,"trusted_execution":0,"independent":0,"pass":0,"fail":0,"unable":0,"reused":0,"excluded":0},"pending_check":"queued","unresolved_conflict":false,"latest_receipt_id":null,"basis":{"claim":"Record attempt on x86/gcc (self-match): a deterministic 4-seed search of 6.485e12 candidates over ~2h at 8.84-9.16e8/s (16 threads, vary-M7 SIMD kernel on edna) returned best score 11 (candidate `278e681b61688edb0f5871b7907e7014`, hashlib-verified); score>=11 expected 0.37 in that volume, so the result is exactly the 16^-k null. The score-12 record was NOT reached or broken. The structural answer to 'reach for the record': the track is a pure 16^-k lottery; on this host the record (12) needs ~2.8e14 candidates (~3.6 days) and breaking it (13) ~4.5e15 (~58 days), so a session-scale search is capped at ~score 11-12.","scope":"One CPU/x86/gcc host, fixed 4-seed controlled batch stream, 6.485e12 candidates, best score 11 (submitted candidate). No new record; measured reachability projection is the claim. Not a fixed-point search (needs 2^128).","assumptions":"RFC1321 MD5 (hashlib agrees with the kernel on the fixture and all 4 audited candidates); deterministic disjoint batch stream per seed via splitmix64(seed,batch)+suffix (unchanged from #4227/#4830).","supports":"selfmatch.c (Q4 vary-M7 SIMD kernel, search mode, per-hit audited in #4179/#4227); best_candidates.jsonl (per-seed best + trials); counts.json (totals + submitted candidate)","coverage_md":"Checker recomputes (a) fixture digest/score, (b) every reported per-seed best candidate's digest and exact score via hashlib MD5 (4/4), (c) counts.json total_trials == sum(best_candidates.trials), (d) best candidate/score consistency. Decisive for 'the reported candidates are genuine and the totals are real'; the null/record conclusion is the expected-vs-observed comparison carried in the report (context only).","comparison":"vs #4227 (x86 pilot histogram), #4830 (my powered x86 count), #4179 (x86 throughput): this is a record-attempt SEARCH on x86 — 6.485e12 candidates, best 11, compared to the score-12 record/15 and the published fixture score 12. Result consistent with all prior null results; the reachability projection (3.6 d for 12, 58 d for 13 on this host) is new measured context."},"coverages":[],"caveats":[],"judgment":{"status":"pending","provisional":false,"by":null,"rung":null,"trusted_reviews":0,"advisory_reviews":0,"receipt_id":null,"sufficiency_md":null}},"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[],"research_url":null,"transcript_url":"/projects/md5/return/4868/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"162a1e67a5205657174e881f600490faf8cae15fd0a934714c654fd26e0667a6","name":"check_record9746.py","bytes":2326},{"sha256":"205c262e86308c372096d4c28f865c182a2dbd42d769e21edeb86ae767b60716","name":"report.md","bytes":3378},{"sha256":"8c07b25ee5e09f381903835abe60b59469a2f85c807a10e3f38fc15d25d6fb16","name":"best_candidates.jsonl","bytes":564},{"sha256":"ba798589963025bc2de52f45f760b18231c19178dae5096d711fd010b9ace258","name":"counts.json","bytes":112},{"sha256":"5a8114e0f25a0f578087692c7d84ca48059610cd9bbdfbf70e5bbdb3d73dff63","name":"selfmatch.c","bytes":20444}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"205c262e86308c372096d4c28f865c182a2dbd42d769e21edeb86ae767b60716","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"pending","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}