Upload folder using huggingface_hub
Browse files- data.json +12 -1
- index.html +2 -2
data.json
CHANGED
|
@@ -1,5 +1,16 @@
|
|
| 1 |
{
|
| 2 |
-
"generated_utc": "2026-07-31 07:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
"tokenizer": "cosmos-cv4x8x8",
|
| 4 |
"zero_baseline": 1.2195221489913883,
|
| 5 |
"verdict": "NO TRANSFER",
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
{
|
| 2 |
+
"generated_utc": "2026-07-31 07:55:33Z",
|
| 3 |
+
"seeds": {
|
| 4 |
+
"n": 3,
|
| 5 |
+
"incr_mean": -0.009137061718228529,
|
| 6 |
+
"incr_std": 0.005614727687208816,
|
| 7 |
+
"incr_all": [
|
| 8 |
+
-0.010297063318744483,
|
| 9 |
+
-0.01408118656974655,
|
| 10 |
+
-0.003032935266194556
|
| 11 |
+
],
|
| 12 |
+
"sign_stable": true
|
| 13 |
+
},
|
| 14 |
"tokenizer": "cosmos-cv4x8x8",
|
| 15 |
"zero_baseline": 1.2195221489913883,
|
| 16 |
"verdict": "NO TRANSFER",
|
index.html
CHANGED
|
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
|
|
| 18 |
margin:20px 0;font-size:14px}
|
| 19 |
</style>
|
| 20 |
<h1>Stage-1 gate — does the action-motion encoder transfer to Cosmos?</h1>
|
| 21 |
-
<div class=sub>tokenizer <code>cosmos-cv4x8x8</code> · generated 2026-07-31 07:
|
| 22 |
<p><span class=verdict>NO TRANSFER</span> the encoder learns well (D beats zero by 32.3%, C by 33.0%), but the action map adds NOTHING over tactile-only (D is 1.0% worse than C; Wan2.2 had D +3.3% over C). The conditioning signal Stages 2-3 inject is redundant here.</p>
|
| 23 |
<div class=note>
|
| 24 |
The encoder predicts per-latent-transition tactile flow. <b>Active-pixel EPE</b> is the
|
|
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@
|
|
| 42 |
<b>Judge the gate on the ordering</b> (D < C < B < zero) <b>and on D's
|
| 43 |
relative margin over zero</b>, both measured entirely within the Cosmos column.
|
| 44 |
</div>
|
| 45 |
-
<div class=note><b>
|
| 46 |
<h2 style="font-size:17px;margin-top:32px">What the two ablations actually see</h2>
|
| 47 |
<p>D's input is a strict superset of C's: the same tactile latent, plus the action
|
| 48 |
map. <b>D − C is therefore exactly what knowing the sensor's own motion buys
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
margin:20px 0;font-size:14px}
|
| 19 |
</style>
|
| 20 |
<h1>Stage-1 gate — does the action-motion encoder transfer to Cosmos?</h1>
|
| 21 |
+
<div class=sub>tokenizer <code>cosmos-cv4x8x8</code> · generated 2026-07-31 07:55:33Z</div>
|
| 22 |
<p><span class=verdict>NO TRANSFER</span> the encoder learns well (D beats zero by 32.3%, C by 33.0%), but the action map adds NOTHING over tactile-only (D is 1.0% worse than C; Wan2.2 had D +3.3% over C). The conditioning signal Stages 2-3 inject is redundant here.</p>
|
| 23 |
<div class=note>
|
| 24 |
The encoder predicts per-latent-transition tactile flow. <b>Active-pixel EPE</b> is the
|
|
|
|
| 42 |
<b>Judge the gate on the ordering</b> (D < C < B < zero) <b>and on D's
|
| 43 |
relative margin over zero</b>, both measured entirely within the Cosmos column.
|
| 44 |
</div>
|
| 45 |
+
<div class=note><b>Seeds.</b> 3 seeds per ablation. The D-vs-C increment is -0.9% ± 0.6% (std). The sign is stable across seeds.</div>
|
| 46 |
<h2 style="font-size:17px;margin-top:32px">What the two ablations actually see</h2>
|
| 47 |
<p>D's input is a strict superset of C's: the same tactile latent, plus the action
|
| 48 |
map. <b>D − C is therefore exactly what knowing the sensor's own motion buys
|