{"id":7038,"job_id":13852,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":34,"type":"measure","user_id":90,"model":"muse-spark","provider":"unknown","report_md":"# All zeros measure: pooled esfg6 yield is uniform at >= 9; il4 side still uncounted\n\nJob 13852, measure, all-zeros. Improvement claim: none. The best\ncandidate reached score 9 in this job's own counted cells, below the\n13 floor, so nothing goes to the results page.\n\n## Hypothesis\n\nThe clang esfg6 arm's rung-9+ yield matches the il4 arm's (uniform),\nso its lead over il4 is purely throughput, not yield. This cycle runs\nthe pooled comparison the prior explore asked for: one more 96-base\nesfg6 harvest against a 200B il4 tally cell, one core each, same\nprotocol as the prior cycle, so the pooled counts can be compared\ndirectly.\n\n## Experiment\n\n- esfg6: the surviving clang-built binary (test PASS again this\n  cycle), fresh seed 13852, 96 bases, 1 thread pinned to core 1.\n  412,316,860,416 trials (96 x 2^32), wall 1570.21 s, 262.59 M/s\n  loaded.\n- il4: the production tally binary, fresh disjoint nonce\n  12689840000000 (verified: the prior cell ran 12489840000000 +\n  200B, done line confirmed), 200B, log interval 120, 1 thread\n  pinned to core 0. 172.57 M/s loaded, [done] total 200000000000,\n  exit 0.\n\n## Results\n\n- Loaded ratio esfg6/il4: 262.59/172.57 = 1.522x, vs 1.444x last\n  cycle and 1.433x solo. Both arms ran slower under load than last\n  cycle (esfg6 262.59 vs 269.50 M/s; il4 172.57 vs 186.57 M/s); load\n  factors vs solo: esfg6 0.762x, il4 0.717x. The il4 rate decayed\n  across its own run (188.49 M/s at 120 s down to 171.75 at 1080 s),\n  so the difference looks like clock/thermal drift under sustained\n  two-core load, not an arm effect. The CS25 throughput lead holds.\n- esfg6 yields (N=412.32B): >=6 24,726 vs 24,576 expected (z +0.96);\n  >=7 1,541 vs 1,536 (z +0.13); >=8 102 vs 96.0 (z +0.61); >=9 6 vs\n  6.0 (z 0.0). Best 9, no 10.\n- il4 yields (N=200B): >=2 781,255,503 vs 781,250,000 (z +0.20); >=4\n  3,051,250 vs 3,051,758 (z -0.29); >=6 11,779 vs 11,921 (z -1.30);\n  >=7 753 vs 745.1 (z +0.29); >=8 46 vs 46.6 (z -0.09). Best 9, no 10.\n- Pooled esfg6 >=9: #13833 (1 vs 3.0) + #13846 (4 vs 6.0) + this run\n  (6 vs 6.0) = 11 vs 15.0 expected over 240 bases, about 1.031T\n  trials (z -1.03). Uniform; the esfg6 side of the comparison is now\n  measured, and it shows no yield deficit or excess.\n- Pooled il4 >=9: not comparable. The il4 binary tallies no >=9\n  count, so only the first 9 per cell is visible: #13699 at least 1,\n  #13835 1, #13846 1, this run 1, a lower bound of at least 4 vs 12.5\n  expected over 860B. The yield ratio still cannot be pinned from\n  the il4 side without a >=9 tally in that binary. That is the\n  remaining gap in the comparison, and it is a tooling gap, not a\n  yield signal.\n- Verification: all 24,726 esfg6 HIT lines and all 10 il4\n  best-progression hits hashlib-verified from the logs (0 mismatches,\n  0 score mismatches).\n\n## Best candidates (all score 9, sub-13, tallied only)\n\n- il4: c1b18c5ca3403a1ae67670e1c13695df8df8e594e40f93917fc6a6e6a5acf05619e5ff7df9d4a91dc4128de9b646cc12dfe76bf4, digest 000000000d024b53275c938cfc139b56\n- esfg6 base 5: 58d9eb4640f6841374c7cf3dcda581199d204bf7bd54a8a47b87aff21f6dbb4c93f8ebd08fb333376e23cb5f358f163b8d18a535, digest 000000000d627385c4d40ed01e8fd99d\n- esfg6 base 20: 5fec002784ee169780ff436c3b0f053465ddf2e2c4418b71dc0867500f676eb135462d57ca9286b77c51e8ef56332d55487f3078, digest 00000000092458997d78ad4ac019a5e4\n- esfg6 base 28: cdc4c486501ccecac29bb4b1efe12e10a8ae60ef6353f27a4daf0b943c203157050c99d6dcfe3e5533f85348473050904ed8e598, digest 0000000001c059eb54a0517d5cf15141\n- esfg6 base 35: 40d791cc232b48ff7baf04e21d52c6a62d22436d37806f9a8b3b4674f66fcf7a6c57d9fdf5f5542ace1f961d8f1ebcce7d92a677, digest 000000000c4d7a5d60682409b25e8c45\n- esfg6 base 66: 75c00599bf8ce78703591a185c453e1b35091ff162e37cb0e80839055764373244c3a39be6de61b6cc7f4255e7c572ccc278e256, digest 00000000046f2f7c89b325dc52efee60\n- esfg6 base 75: dd97a25c319baf8eb9f8e18b6fa6990ba29d9eeaab3aab6e5a091b601492f388a3278235e4b3ad06bb2a94c4472fcc4ed6be0fe5, digest 000000000bed8a693a2d0ec4cd265ec3\n\n## Counted totals\n\nil4 tally cells 1480B after this cell (1280B + 200B). Next disjoint\nall-zeros start nonce: 12889840000000. Esfg6 trials about 1.031T\n(618B + 412.32B). The two arms keep separate totals; they cover\ndifferent input families.\n\n## What the next run should try\n\nAdd a >= 9 tally to the il4 tally binary so the pooled yield ratio\ncan actually be computed from the il4 side, or accept the esfg6\npooled count (11 vs 15.0, uniform) as the comparison's answer and\nspend future cycles on volume on the faster arm.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"pending","final_rung":null,"created_at":"2026-11-06T17:11:52.125Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"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":"# Recipe\n\nTo repeat this comparison: run the clang-built esfg6 binary with a\nfresh seed and 96 bases on one core, and the il4 tally binary from\na verified disjoint nonce (prior start + prior total from the done\nline) for 200B on the other core. Verify every logged hit with\nhashlib.md5 and check each printed score against the true\nleading-zero count. Pool the esfg6 >= 9 counts across #13833,\n#13846, and this run (240 bases, about 1.031T trials) against\n16^-9 expectations. Note the il4 binary reports no >= 9 tally, so\nits pooled count is a lower bound from first-9-per-cell sightings\nonly.","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":"2026-11-06T17:11:52.125Z","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":"Study 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/7038/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"c3b97d216360579964aa4eb483afe271898c91a2b441017cd9bc0e8c7fc372c8","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"pending","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}