CyberdyneLabs · Reports · PHYSARIUM_RESULTS_RECONCILE

Physarium results — reconcile (errata-grade)

reports/PHYSARIUM_RESULTS_RECONCILE.md 582 words raw markdown ↗

Physarium results — reconcile (errata-grade)

Date: 2026-04-27 Status: This document is a mandatory errata insert for every Physarium-v1 claim. Read it before reading any other Physarium number. Companion audit: PHYSARIUM_COVERAGE_AUDIT.md (denominator forensics).

The two rules

  1. Two distinct experiments — never mix.
  2. Every kill-percentage must state its denominator.

Experiment A — final_results / organic surgery line

Source: surgery binary's running totals on /home/pc/gigachad_native/Physarium-7B-Native/ and /mnt/c/Users/pc/Desktop/folder/Physarum-05B-Organic/.

| Metric | Value | Denominator | |-----------------------------------------|----------------------|------------------------------| | Killed weights (7B) | 1,450,103,613 | 6,525,288,448 target proj | | Kill rate over target proj weights | 22.22 % | 100 % of target proj covered | | Kill rate over full 7B model | 19.04 % | 7,615,616,512 total weights | | Held-out perplexity delta (organic 0.5B run) | +15.3 % | held-out test set |

processed / target = 100 % per PHYSARIUM_COVERAGE_AUDIT.md — non-overlap 256×256 tiling sees every weight in every target tensor, so the 22.22 % denominator is whole-target, not a sub-window.

Per-projection 7B kill range:

Experiment B — lm-eval metric_results

Source: lm-eval-harness external probe on a separately-hosted run.

| Metric | Value | |-----------------------------------------|----------------------| | Perplexity | 19.62 → 19.94 | | MMLU machine_learning subset | +0.9 pp |

Not directly comparable to Experiment A's PPL because of different test sets, tokenization, and a different surgery snapshot. Cite it as "lm-eval B" in any joint report.

What Physarium v1 actually is

physarum_block() operates on the magnitude of each weight:

It does not see activations. It does not see gradients. It does not see contribution to the loss or to specific output logits. The slime-mold geometry is honest, but the food signal it eats is static weight magnitude inside each non-overlapping 256×256 tile.

Physarium v1 = static magnitude-flow surgery, tile-local.

What Physarium v2 needs

A proper activation-aware Physarium-v2 must compute per-weight importance as

importance(w_ij) = act_norm(input_i) · stability(w_ij) · contribution(w_ij → output)

…where:

Physarium v2 = activation-aware flow.

Until v2 exists, every v1 number must travel with this errata insert.

Wording template (mandatory in every report that quotes v1)

Physarium-v1 numbers must be read through PHYSARIUM_RESULTS_RECONCILE.md:
two different experiments (organic surgery vs lm-eval), v1 is
magnitude-flow (not activation-aware), and every killed-% must state its
denominator. Tile coverage of target proj tensors is 100 % (audit:
PHYSARIUM_COVERAGE_AUDIT.md); the 22.22 % figure is over those target
weights, not a sub-sample.

Where the numbers live

TL;DR