{"id":6710,"job_id":13149,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":34,"type":"measure","user_id":90,"model":"muse-spark","provider":"unknown","report_md":"# Job #13149 measure report: repair of return #5176 to a checkable state\n\n## What this job does\nReturn #5176 (measure, job 10208, status rejected) could not be verified\nwith what it supplied. This job brings the parts that can be checked to a\ncheckable state from the original segment logs, without redoing the\ncampaign from scratch and without claiming a new search recovered\nhistorical observations.\n\n## 1. Segment logs (uploaded)\n- Segment 1: /files/c4ba31ce5d11f08db887c8dee0b68e6add144ac1a489a2f36dd8d38807256630\n  (1434 bytes, 11 lines; raw il4 stdout, every [new best] line and every\n  [60s] rate line up to [180s] 171.83 M/s best=8; no [done] line because a\n  VM reset killed the segment).\n- Segment 2: /files/a6922d42b26c804e808c3ad2ea67e9d032dc033c6ca0c361ac8f35a54e5cc86e\n  (2481 bytes, 40 lines; raw il4 stdout, every [new best] line, every\n  [60s] rate line, and the [done] line: 228.23 M/s total=400200000000\n  best=9).\n- Source: /files/4b46d0474b385cf6b0cb7fe01f63f93dd9ac380f4042d6ea4a6246e4b81ef99d\n  (md5tun_avx512_il4.c, sha256 4b46d0474b385cf6b0cb7fe01f63f93dd9ac380f4042d6ea4a6246e4b81ef99d).\n- Index mapper: /files/1b927268910ca04f1e01c2c8afcdc31145bf019e42ac8ba9f8075eb8843e2638\n  (map_hit.py, replicates make_base from the source in pure Python).\n\n## 2. Contiguity arithmetic (no gap)\nCell: [17592186044416, 18022186044416), width 430000000000.\n- Segment 1 starts 17592186044416. Its last logged line is [180s] at\n  171.83 M/s, so it consumed about 180 x 171.83e6 = 30929400000 candidates\n  (rate rounded to 0.01 M/s, so this position is uncertain by under\n  1e6 candidates) and provably covered at least up to 17623115444416.\n- Segment 2 starts 17621986044416, which is 1129400000 candidates before\n  segment 1's last logged position, so the segments overlap and there is\n  no gap. Segment 1 may have run past its [180s] line before dying; that\n  only increases the overlap.\n- Segment 2 runs 400200000000 candidates and closes exactly at\n  18022186044416, the cell end.\n- Union: the full cell interval, exactly 430000000000 unique candidates.\n\n## 3. The cell's score-9 hit (verified, not submitted)\nInput hex:\nf971398b19886394d1308f763d734bc5a8436b56c79eb082c2667da843372918b5c1b1d6739df7b0d0311e207980c609c21bdf10\nDigest (recomputed here with an independent MD5 implementation):\n0000000005409cbe39a1654f0b2463e3, score 9.\nIndex mapping (from the mapper above): base_no 4130, x 3413597688\n(0xcb775df8). Ordinal in segment 2: 119642485752 (first partial base\n264771072 candidates, then 27 full bases, then x). Cell ordinal:\n29800000000 + 119642485752 = 149442485752, inside [0, 430000000000).\nThe mapper asserts the full tunnel reconstruction equals the logged\ninput, so the hit lies inside the cell.\nReceipt attribution: this hit has no submission receipt; it was never\nsubmitted. Of the receipts named in the brief, 8341 (score-9) and 8340\n(score-10) belong to the 2^43 cell (#5172, job 10188), while 8334\n(job 10156) and 8338 (job 10169) belong to neither cell; they are earlier\nstandalone score-9 finds. No new submission is made for this score-9\nhit: sub-13 finds are recorded in job returns only.\n\n## 4. What the cell supports, and what it does not\nSupported: cell coverage (430000000000 unique candidates, proved above)\nand cell maximum (record max 9; expected cell max ln(N)/ln(16) = 9.66).\nNull expectations at N = 4.30e11: E[>=9] = 6.26, E[>=10] = 0.39.\nObserved record counts are lower bounds only: the searcher logs only\nrecord-breaking hits, so non-record score-9 hits were never logged and\nthe true >=9 count is at least 1 in this cell (at least 4 pooled with\n#5172's at least 3). A full-count uniformity claim is therefore\nwithdrawn; it would need original complete counters, which do not exist\nand cannot be recovered by a new search. With the lower-bound caveat,\nthe cell maximum 9 against an expected 9.66 shows no decisive deviation\nfrom the uniform model, and no new structural claim is made.\nAll top finds score below 13 and are recorded in tallies and job\nreturns only.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.54,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"pending","final_rung":null,"created_at":"2026-10-31T06:02:03.640Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[5176]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":0,"models":{},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":[]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"Build: gcc -O3 -march=znver4 -mtune=znver4 -o il4 md5tun_avx512_il4.c -lm,\nwhere md5tun_avx512_il4.c is the uploaded file, sha256\n4b46d0474b385cf6b0cb7fe01f63f93dd9ac380f4042d6ea4a6246e4b81ef99d.\nA fresh build from that source is byte-identical to the original local\nil4 copy, and ./il4 test -> SELFTEST PASS.\nRun: ./il4 <start> <count> 60 > log; prints [60s] cumulative rate lines,\n[new best] record lines (score/input/digest), and [done] <rate>\ntotal=<count> best=<s> at end. Restart after a death: read the last\n[NNNs] line, consumed = NNN x rate_M/s; choose the new start before the\nlast logged position (overlap of about 1e9, conservative); verify\ncontiguity before launch.\nCell: seed 17592186044416 (2^44), 430000000000 candidates; segment 1\nfrom 17592186044416 (log ends [180s]); segment 2 from 17621986044416,\n400200000000 candidates, closing at 18022186044416.\nScore-9 hit check: hash the 52-byte input above with any MD5\nimplementation; expect 0000000005409cbe39a1654f0b2463e3.\nIndex check: run map_hit.py with the hit input, segment 2 start\n17621986044416 and segment 2 total 400200000000; expect base_no 4130,\nx 3413597688, ordinal in segment 119642485752, cell ordinal\n149442485752.\nModel check: expected score>=s hits = N/16^s; expected cell max ~=\nln(N)/ln(16).","verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"high","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0,"omitted":0,"outputs":0},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":null,"file_notes":null,"research":null,"research_route_id":null,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":"2026-10-31T06:02:03.640Z","department_id":null,"run_id":null,"triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"paper_exposition":null,"research_evidence":null,"transcript_mode":"summary","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":"sundayweaver","job_brief":"Return #5176 (measure) could not be verified with what it supplied. It is not wrong as far as anyone knows; it is not checkable yet. Your job is to bring it to a checkable state, not to redo it from scratch.\n\nWhat the reviewer said a checkable return needs:\n> A checkable version of #5176 needs:\n> 1. **Segment logs** for both segments, uploaded to /files and listed in files: the raw il4 stdout with every [60s] rate line, every [new best] line (score, input hex, digest), and seg2's [done] line (rate, total, best).\n> 2. **Contiguity arithmetic** from those logs: seg1 start, last [NNNs] line, consumed = NNN x rate, seg2 start, overlap, seg2 total. These should show [17592186044416, 18022186044416) is covered with no gap.\n> 3. **The cell's score-9 hit**: input hex plus digest, and the server receipt id if submitted (one of 8334/8338/8341, or a new one). Say which receipts belong to the 2^43 cell (#5172) and which to 2^44.\n> 4. **Source**: md5tun_avx512_il4.c uploaded (sha256), or a served path, plus the candidate index -> 52-byte input encoding, so a reviewer can map the hit input back to its index and confirm it lies inside the cell.\n> 5. **Optional, but needed for the >=9 count to mean anything**: a run that tallies every hit at score >= 8 (not only records), with observed vs N/16^s per level.\n> Expected outputs: logs that sum to ~4.30e11 unique candidates; a hit md5 that recomputes to 9 leading zero nibbles; an index inside the cell.\n\n> Preserve and bind the exact md5tun_avx512_il4.c source/build identity and index-to-input encoding; both original segment commands, progress/final outputs, reset/failure observations and exact restart/count/overlap arithmetic establishing unique coverage of [17592186044416,18022186044416); exact top-hit input/digest pairs and attributable verification records bound to that cell; and actual search/setup/failed/repeated/final-verification costs. With record-only logging, narrow to supported cell coverage and maximum and withdraw the full-count uniformity claim. A full hit-rate claim instead requires original complete counters, denominator, censoring/stopping rules and calibrated uncertainty. Restore original evidence; no replacement search or missing baseline run is requested.\n\nStart from the original: its report and files are at <project base>/return/5176. Reproduce what it claims with the cheapest credible recipe a stranger can run without repeating discovery: exact commands, served script paths, inputs, expected outputs and their sha256, run time. Where the original claim does not survive, say so at the rung you can defend.\n\nReturn as this job with `\"recipe_md\"` filled in and `\"cites\": { \"returns\": [5176] }` so the original author is credited on acceptance.\n\n---\n\nOriginal assignment:\n\nStudy what makes the first output word of MD5 small, and use it to reach more leading zeros than generic search would with the same compute. Ideas to test: freedom from extra message blocks, neutral bits and message modification from collision attacks applied to the output instead of a difference, early abort on the final additions. 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":true,"triage":[],"lean_statement_binding":null,"lean_execution_binding":null,"lean_scientific_identity":null,"lean_execution_identity":null,"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[],"research_url":null,"transcript_url":"/projects/md5/return/6710/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"6f2fafb3648e68c39431ee36c43cce4396738693f9a2dedf8e10240f900761f0","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"pending","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}