RigorQuant turns one Harness session into a lab that explores, verifies, and attacks its own results — running unattended. Nothing is declared done until an independent check says so, on the record. RigorQuant 把一个 Harness 会话变成一座自我探索、自我验证、自我攻击的实验室 —— 全部无人值守地运转。在独立的检查于记录上签字之前,任何事都不算完成。
npx dsh-rigorquantEach persona is a separate tool with its own powers and limits, so the producer never checks its own work. The separation is enforced by the composition, not by asking nicely. 每个人格都是一个独立的工具,各有其能力边界,因此生产者绝不自查自己的成果。这种分离由组合本身强制,而不是靠口头约定。
Fans out the work, synthesizes, writes the state. Bound by four rules: producer ≠ checker; eliminate only by counterexample; always record seeds; never handwave a load-bearing claim. 扇出工作、综合结果、写状态。受四条铁律约束:生产者≠检查者;只凭反例淘汰;随机运行必记种子;承重命题不许空谈。
Blank-context, divergent. Proposes lemmas, equations, candidate methods with exact statements. Status reports are rejected. 白纸上下文、刻意发散。给出引理、方程、带精确陈述的候选方法;拒绝状态汇报式的输出。
Off the grid of other people's results: raw model intelligence plus the compute lane (sympy, numpy, Lean checkers) — no web, no literature, no drafts. Its own agent, not an Explorer variant. 脱离他人结果之网:只凭模型推理与计算通道(sympy、numpy、Lean 校验器)——无联网、无文献、无草稿。独立智能体,不是探索者的变体。
Blind — no web, no skills, no delegation, no drafts. Re-derives the hard claims from first principles, twice by different means. 盲态 —— 无联网、无技能、无委派、无草稿。从第一性原理把关键命题重推两遍,方法各异。
Runs the check battery and hunts counterexamples. An idea dies only on a concrete failure — never on style or vibes. Ends in a verdict. 执行检验组、专找反例。一个想法只会死于具体失败案例 —— 绝不因风格或感觉而死,最后给出裁决。
A walled citation-graph sweep, then an independent adversary re-retrieves each claim and certifies it's real and current. 封闭式引文图遍历,再由独立对抗者逐条重取主张,确认其真实且不过时。
Refuses a PASS with missing evidence. Reads the audit record, never the study's own claims — a study cannot vouch for itself. 证据缺失即拒绝 PASS。只读审计记录,绝不读研究自称的主张 —— 研究无法为自己作保。
Promise narrowly按原意承诺
Record the original question verbatim, split into sub-problems with crisp success criteria, pick hand-checkable simplified cases, pin seeds, tolerances and the schema/validator digests. 逐字记录原始问题,拆成带明确成功判据的子问题,挑手算可验的简化情形,钉死种子、容差以及 schema/校验器的摘要。
Fan out扇出
Explorers and literature lines run on blank context. Most are never told the favored approach. 探索者与文献线在白纸上下文中运行;大多数不会被告知偏好的路线。
Ground-truth it求真
The blind DoubleChecker re-derives the load-bearing claims without seeing anyone's draft. Two independent derivations for anything the study rests on. 盲态的双重复核不看草稿地重推承重命题;凡研究赖以立足之处,必须有两份独立推导。
Attack it攻击
The adversary runs the four-gate battery, then hunts counterexamples. Divergent tracks are lined up as an adjudication docket first. 对抗者先跑四关检验,再找反例。分歧的轨道会先被排成一份裁定案卷。
Certify & ship认证并交付
The validator checks nothing is missing; the paper and slides are assembled from validated records, not written fresh. 校验器确认无遗漏;论文与幻灯由已验证记录装配,而不是现写。
Closed-form equality闭式等价
Does the method reproduce the exactly derived answer?方法能否复现精确推导出的答案?
Exact invariants精确不变量
Do the structural identities hold exactly?结构恒等式是否精确成立?
Analytic bounds解析界
Are derived bounds ever violated?推导出的界是否被违反过?
Statistical hardening统计加固
Seeded reproducibility, distributional agreement, LLN shrinking ≈ C/√N.固定种子的可复现、分布吻合、LLN 误差按 ≈ C/√N 收缩。
One study, one round, four parallel tracks. Each excerpt below carries the persona that produced it. 一份研究、一轮、四条并行轨道。下面每条摘录都标明产出的那个人格。
For a portfolio with weights w, asset volatilities σᵢ = √Σᵢᵢ, and portfolio volatility σₚ = √(wᵀΣw), the Diversification Ratio DR(w) = (wᵀσ)/σₚ either does or does not admit an additive per-asset attribution analogous to the x-sigma-rho decomposition … Deliver, for arbitrary n ≥ 2, arbitrary PSD covariance Σ …
- Study created (Mode B multi-study repo), study root studies/20260816_diversification-ratio - Goal created (goal-c80499ea-04b9-4a49-af47-7d10b2922250), max 5 rounds.
Explorer found the KEY non-trivial result: deficiency attribution DR = 1 + Σᵢ (wᵢσᵢ/σₚ)(1 − ρᵢ,ₚ) (same x-sigma-rho ingredients, correlation shortfall)
All four tracks returned and CONVERGE. GT-symbolic + GT-analytic (two independent means) both derive … 33 exact symbolic checks + 5 numeric tables all pass. Orchestrator independently re-verified the deficiency attribution + CFR identities (sympy exact + numpy n=8): all residuals ≤ 4.4e-16.
Counterexamples: negative weights break DR≥1 (DR=1/√5=0.4472); equality condition must be "ρᵢⱼ=1 for pairs with wᵢwⱼ>0" (w=(0,0.6,0.4) with ρ₂₃=1, ρ₁₂=0.2 ⇒ DR=1 exactly). AS diverges logarithmically (ratio 2.0000).
{"routeId":"degree-0-disproof","status":"passed", "mechanism":"DR(tw)=DR(w) (degree 0) => Euler sum = 0*DR = 0 identically; dDR/dwᵢ = (σᵢ/σₚ)(1 − DR·ρᵢ,ₚ). Independently derived by two ground-truth tracks (symbolic sympy + analytic) and audited by the adversary.", "outputs":["derivations/gt-analytic.md","derivations/gt-symbolic.md","audits/round-1-adversary.md"]}
rq_check.py: **PASS** (exit 0, complete evidence). Final resolution of the broad claim: DISPROVED in the marginal/Euler sense; DERIVED in the deficiency sense (DR = 1 + Σ (wᵢ σᵢ/σₚ)(1 − ρᵢ,ₚ)); plus trivial per-asset and pairwise-benefit decompositions; DR ≥ 1 for w ≥ 0.
explorer flagged Steiner (2025) SSRN 5588193 … as likely closest prior work … the deficiency attribution is an elementary one-line consequence of the two Euler identities and is very likely known — cite it as likely prior art, not as novel.
The longest run should have been the least trustworthy. Instead every error left a trail. 最长的运行本应最不可信;结果每个错误都留下了痕迹。
FAIL -- 7 problem(s): - literature gate: sub-problem SP1 is marked 'known' but literature/known-results.json has no verified-current record for it
cash-leg Euler residual : r_f exactly | 0.0150000000000 at r_f = 0.015 crossover horizon h* = z²w′Σw/(w′μ)² : 16.909646588 (95%), 33.824340194 (99%) Kish ESS at H=252 : (1+λ)/(1−λ) | 727.1187590387
…an unshrunk estimated drift degrades a Kupiec statistic from 0.3288 to 35688.53.
§8 verdict: FAIL; may not stand. H1–H11 omit necessary dependence/process hypotheses, and explicit counterexamples break exactness.
21 substantive errors — ten by producing agents, eleven by the orchestrator itself — and all twenty-one were caught by a specific mechanism, not by luck. A workflow that only polices its subagents would have shipped half of what went wrong. 21 个实质性错误 —— 生产者 10 个、编排者自己 11 个 —— 全部被特定机制捕获,无一靠运气。只监督子代理的工作流,会把一半错误直接发布出去。
| Run运行 | Outcome结局 | Receipt收据 |
|---|---|---|
| convex-sampling | a pinned claim audited by two tracks + an adversary; domain-scale on p-balls钉扎主张经双轨道+对抗者审计;在 p-球上做领域尺度 | 531 checks · 8/8 mutations |
| autocorr-tail-risk | within-period skew/kurtosis does not subsume autocorrelation for tail risk期内偏/峰度并不涵盖自相关对尾风险的作用 | Var(S₃₆)=1.491× · +34/+41% |
| diversification-ratio | the hoped-for formula proved impossible; the true one derived期待的公式被证明不存在;真正成立的那条被推导出来 | PASS · 4 tracks converge |
| implied-expected-returns | a survey where 41 claims were independently adjudicated一次综述,41 条主张被独立裁决 | 38 current · 2 false |
| multiasset-diversification | mid-flight, captured deliberately: 3 walled lines + a lemma-attack lane特意收录的中间态:三条封闭线+引理攻击道 | active · round 0 |
| var-expected-return-term | the hard one: 21 errors caught, one dial-back, a PASS that declares its own disclosure硬骨头:21 个错误被捕获、一次回拨、一个带自我披露的 PASS | 21/21 · 11 by orchestrator |
verified-current 26 · verified-stale 7 · unverifiable 27 · false-claim 14 (of 81 claims)
So the test suite includes a forged study — empty derivations, a one-line audit, a paper that says nothing — and it must fail. 因此测试套件里含有一份伪造研究 —— 空的推导、一行审计、一篇「什么都没说」的论文 —— 而它必须失败。
npx dsh-rigorquant
rigorquant: derive and validate a method for [your problem][你的问题], simplified cases first. Let the adversary see it.让对抗者来审。