benchmarks: audit squarefree-class independence reasoning - #313
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 36ac50b569
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep it up! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 4a1607657e
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d07caf7fe9
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: e25cbd7247
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
The verifier checksum LABEL in the squarefree-class-independence-audit Dockerfile drifted from sha256(verifier.py) after the recent verifier edits, failing the Benchmark Prospective Digest Checks lane (and the paired Benchmark Validation gate). Regenerate the label via tools/sync_harbor_verifier_support.py --write. Generated with [Devin](https://devin.ai) Co-Authored-By: Devin <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
2 participants
Summary
Selection quality
Provisional score: 87/100. This adds an equivalence-class abstraction and transversal argument followed by a finite modular certificate. It is materially different from the existing cubic-residue obstruction task, whose proof ends at a direct congruence contradiction.
Nearby candidates were rejected because they were routine telescoping or counting exercises, or lacked a stable independent verifier for the full claimed inequality.
Provenance
lm-provers/FineProofs-SFT73661e62811cf2940a0d3f82788a4f4332204c2ftrain[4]d221d45dfd530c3892d960f7685fd5caabcdec5079b4122731bebeab79aad52dValidation
make harbor-syncmake harbor-check(459 passed)git diff --checkThe verifier reports
COMPUTEDonly. It does not claim formal proof verification or trust the public solution text.Reusable-tool review
No new reusable capability is justified. The repository already exposes quadratic-residue enumeration; the remaining squarefree-class and transversal steps are benchmark reasoning, and a theorem-specific wrapper would not be reusable.