runtime: ground the node asked about, and refuse circular support #147
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: neuron-technologies/el#147
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "fix/ground-echo-and-self"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
engram_ground_jsonresolved each seed to a region, wrote thegrounded-byedge between the two regions’ hubs, and echoed those hubs back in theclaim/evidencefields as if they were the caller’s input.Three consequences, all measured against a clone of the live store:
The fix
The region is how a claim is evaluated; it is not what the claim is about. The edge now attaches to the requested ids, and the resolved hubs are reported separately as
claim_region/evidence_region.Degeneracy is broader than
hub == hub. Three circular shapes, all previously invisible:same-regionclaim-region-is-evidenceevidence-region-is-claimEach sets
groundingto 0 and writes no edge. Circular support is not support, and a grounding degenerate by construction must not enter the graph as evidence.Verified
6edf8c79 → 6edf8c796edf8c79 → d0406dfdebc1413e → 64cc96ef64cc96ef → ebc1413eLegitimate grounding across distinct regions is unchanged and still writes; only circular support is refused.
Same class as #142 and #146 — a value that looked like an answer with nothing behind it — except this one was also writing that non-answer into the canonical store.
engram_ground_json resolved each seed to a REGION, wrote the grounded-by edge between the two regions' HUBS, and then echoed those hubs back in the "claim"/"evidence" fields as if they were the caller's input: const char* cid = C->hub_id ? C->hub_id : EL_CSTR(claim); const char* eid = E->hub_id ? E->hub_id : EL_CSTR(evidence); cog_ground_edge(g_engram_store, cid, eid, grounding, fw); Three consequences, all measured against a clone of the live store: 1. The edge landed on a node the caller never named. Grounding 3b9ced5d against 6edf8c79 wrote an edge on the hubs of their regions instead. 2. When both seeds resolve into the same region the support is circular and scores near 1.0 for structural reasons, not evidential ones. Four probe nodes written together landed in one region, and every grounding among them returned 0.93-0.99 as if it were evidence. Two independent agents hit this and reported 0.885 / 0.909 self-groundings as confident. 3. The echo concealed both: the response was indistinguishable from a successful grounding of the ids that were passed in. The region is HOW a claim is evaluated; it is not WHAT the claim is about. So the edge now attaches to the requested ids, and the resolved hubs are reported separately as claim_region / evidence_region. Degeneracy is broader than hub == hub. Three circular shapes, all previously invisible: same-region both seeds resolve to one region claim-region-is-evidence the evidence IS the hub of the claim's own neighbourhood — measured at 0.98883 evidence-region-is-claim the mirror case Each sets grounding to 0 and writes no edge. Circular support is not support, and a grounding that is degenerate by construction must not enter the graph as though it were evidence. Verified: 6edf8c79 -> 6edf8c79 degenerate=same-region g=0 written=false 6edf8c79 -> d0406dfd degenerate=same-region g=0 written=false ebc1413e -> 64cc96ef degenerate=false g=0.774563 written=true 64cc96ef -> ebc1413e degenerate=false g=0.802896 written=true Legitimate grounding across distinct regions is unchanged and still writes; only circular support is refused. This is the same class as #142 and #146 — a value that looked like an answer with nothing behind it — except here it was also writing that non-answer into the canonical store.