Explanation statuses — Whether the record believes the ACCOUNT, which is not what the same word means on a practice. An explanation can be Rejected while the thing it explained goes on working exactly as well as it ever did (ADR-031).
Replaced — a later account covers the same ground better, and this one names it.
1 of 129 THEORY documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| THEORY-111 | A hyperparameter can look important because it is entangled with an averaging length you froze, so sensitivity attributed to one knob may belong to the pair | Karras et al. (2023), LIT-720, measured on EDM2-S / ImageNet-512: with the weight-averaging length pinned at 13%, varying the learning-rate decay across t_ref ∈ [30k, 160k] moves FID by up to 72%; sweeping the averaging length post hoc puts the whole bracket within 10% of the optimum. The decay’s apparent importance was mostly a fact about the pair. Generalising: a sensitivity curve measured with a second knob frozen at a guess attributes the interaction to the knob being swept, and there is no way to tell from the curve. | Superseded — by SOTA-428; Retired as redundant rather than wrong. The claim — that a hyperparameter’s apparent importance can belong to its interaction with a frozen averaging length — is already stated in SOTA-428’s Conditions, in the same words the source uses: “Much of what looks like learning-rate sensitivity is EMA mismatch”, with the same 72%-against-10% bracket behind it. A theory document restating a practice’s own condition from the same single measurement adds a citation target and no claim. superseded_by: points at the practice because that is where the content lives, not because a practice supersedes a theory. |