dsh-rigorquant
DeepSeek Harness · a self-auditing research labDeepSeek Harness · 一个自审计的研究实验室

Research with
receipts.
带着凭据的
研究。

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。

one line:一行命令: npx dsh-rigorquant
How it runs如何运转

Not one model. A process that checks itself.不是单个模型,而是一个会自我检查的流程。

Each 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。

Orchestrator

Orchestrator编排者

root persona

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。

Explorer

Explorer探索者

explorer-<n>

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。

OffGridThinker

OffGridThinker离网思考者

offgrid-<n>

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。

DoubleChecker

DoubleChecker双重复核

doublechecker-<n>

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。

Adversary

Adversary对抗者

adversary-<n>

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。

Literature

Literature文献线

lit-line-<n> · lit-adversary-<n>

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。

Validator

Validator校验器

rq_check.py + schemas

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。

the loop — how the personas hand off循环 —— 人格之间如何交接
01

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。

Orchestratororchestrator writes the contract编排者写下契约
02

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。

Orchestrator→ Explorer explorers propose探索者提出
03

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。

DoubleChecker isolated · blind隔离 · 盲态
04

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。

Explorer+ DoubleChecker→ Adversary adversary attacks both tracks对抗者攻击两条轨道
05

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。

Adversary→ Validator→ Orchestrator verdict → gate → assembly裁决 → 闸门 → 装配
the check battery, run before any implementation检验组 —— 任何实现之前先跑
A

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?

B

Exact invariants精确不变量

Do the structural identities hold exactly?结构恒等式是否精确成立?

C

Analytic bounds解析界

Are derived bounds ever violated?推导出的界是否被违反过?

D

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。

A real run, in its own words一次真实运行,以原话呈现

The Diversification Ratio多样化比率

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。

Orchestratorstudy.json · broad_criterion — promised verbatim问题原文intake

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 …

studies/20260816_diversification-ratio/study.json
Orchestratorjournal.md · round 0fan-out

- Study created (Mode B multi-study repo), study root studies/20260816_diversification-ratio - Goal created (goal-c80499ea-04b9-4a49-af47-7d10b2922250), max 5 rounds.

studies/20260816_diversification-ratio/journal.md
Explorerjournal.md · round 1 · the key result关键结果explore

Explorer found the KEY non-trivial result: deficiency attribution DR = 1 + Σᵢ (wᵢσᵢ/σₚ)(1 − ρᵢ,ₚ) (same x-sigma-rho ingredients, correlation shortfall)

studies/20260816_diversification-ratio/journal.md
DoubleCheckerjournal.md · round 1 · two independent means两种独立手段ground truth

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.

studies/20260816_diversification-ratio/journal.md
Adversaryjournal.md · round 1 attack

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).

studies/20260816_diversification-ratio/journal.md
Validatorregistry.json · a passed route certify

{"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"]}

studies/20260816_diversification-ratio/registry.json
Validatorjournal.md · donecertify

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.

studies/20260816_diversification-ratio/journal.md
Orchestratorjournal.md refuses novelty it didn't earn不冒领新颖性honesty

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.

studies/20260816_diversification-ratio/journal.md
The one that pushed back那一回被顶回去的研究

VaR drift — twenty-one errors, all caughtVaR 漂移项 —— 21 个错误,全被捕获

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。

Validatoraudits/ · first validator runintake

FAIL -- 7 problem(s): - literature gate: sub-problem SP1 is marked 'known' but literature/known-results.json has no verified-current record for it

studies/20260820_var-expected-return-term
DoubleCheckerderivations/ · GT-A symbolic vs GT-B numericalground truth

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

studies/20260820_var-expected-return-term/derivations/
Adversaryaudits/ · round 1attack

…an unshrunk estimated drift degrades a Kupiec statistic from 0.3288 to 35688.53.

studies/20260820_var-expected-return-term/audits/
Adversaryaudits/ · SP6 adversary, on the stage-3 claimrefused

§8 verdict: FAIL; may not stand. H1–H11 omit necessary dependence/process hypotheses, and explicit counterexamples break exactness.

studies/20260820_var-expected-return-term/audits/

The part worth quoting值得引用的一段

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。

Proof & receipts证据与收据

Six studies, end to end六个研究,端到端

Run运行Outcome结局Receipt收据
convex-samplinga 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-riskwithin-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-ratiothe 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-returnsa 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-diversificationmid-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-termthe 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 PASS21/21 · 11 by orchestrator
Literatureknown-results.json · one review's verdict tableliterature

verified-current 26 · verified-stale 7 · unverifiable 27 · false-claim 14 (of 81 claims)

an independent literature adversary re-retrieved and re-certified every claim
Honesty is tested诚实性被测试

A framework whose honesty gate isn't tested will certify whatever it's handed. 诚实闸门本身不被测试的框架,会认证任何递给它的东西。

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。

Get started开始使用

Bring your own problem.带上你自己的问题。

npx dsh-rigorquant
Requires DeepSeek Harness ≥ 0.1.0-rc.7. Pick the RigorQuant preset. 需要 DeepSeek Harness ≥ 0.1.0-rc.7,选择 RigorQuant 预设。
Then ask, in plain language:然后这样提问:
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。