Replaces the extrapolated pre-v0.3 weak-spot claims in baseline.toml's
header (which had the wrong sign on step-count error) with measured
numbers from the first full rollout validation of this exact config,
and adds a matching Roadmap entry in CLAUDE.md.
A fixed comparison point for future architecture variants, so each
experimental axis (routed trunk, WGAN generators, attention history,
shared conditioning) is a single edit away from one known config.
flow/flow autoregressive, hidden_dim 512 / 6 blocks per stage, physical
conditioning, no router, 7.70M params. Chosen by ranking the five runs in
analysis_runs/ by mean Jensen-Shannon divergence against the Geant4
reference: unrouted flow wins (0.172) over routed flow (0.197/0.200) and
both WGAN runs (0.218/0.234), with the lead concentrated in per-event
total deposited energy and the per-PDG marginals.
batch_size 36864 is sized for one L40S on deepthought2 from a measured
linear fit of this config's training step (reserved MiB = 0.9736 * bs +
115), giving ~36 GiB, 78% of the card.
The comments record two measured facts that are easy to get wrong:
WGAN is slower to *train* than flow (n_critic plus the gradient-penalty
double-backward), its advantage being inference-only; and
sample_secondaries_ar loops over all k_max slots unconditionally rather
than short-circuiting on n_sec, which is what makes the autoregressive
decoder the dominant cost on both axes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
lars