# sample-efficiency eval lane ## What it measures How many reviewed corrections CORE needs before a probed concept produces grounded, coherent answers. This is the first **quantitative-curve** lane in the framework (Phase 4 per `docs/capability_roadmap.md`): the output is a curve per concept, not a pass/fail score per case. For each concept, the runner teaches one correction at a time and probes the concept after each correction. Plotting probe score as a function of corrections-given yields the *corrections-to- competence curve*. ## Why quantitative Frontier models hide their per-correction learning behind the training run; the practitioner sees the final checkpoint and not the slope. CORE's reviewed-teaching loop makes per-correction learning observable by construction. This lane publishes the slope. ## Setup per concept - A **curriculum**: an ordered list of correction utterances about the concept (typically 5–8). Each correction is a real proposition the teaching review will accept under the existing identity-override defense. - A **probe**: a single question whose expected answer is the union of tokens introduced by the curriculum. Probes are re-asked after each cumulative correction count. After teaching `k` corrections (k = 0, 1, 2, …, n), the runner asks the probe and records: - `cumulative_token_hit_count` — how many of the curriculum's expected tokens appear (case-insensitively, token-bounded) in the probe response's `surface` or `walk_surface`. - `vault_hits` — direct vault retrieval count for the probe. - `trace_hash` — the deterministic turn hash for this snapshot. ## Quantities published For each concept the lane reports: - The full curve: `[(k, cumulative_token_hit_count, vault_hits)]` for k from 0 to len(curriculum). - `corrections_to_first_hit` — smallest k where `cumulative_token_hit_count ≥ 1`. `None` if never. - `corrections_to_saturation` — smallest k where `cumulative_token_hit_count == len(curriculum)`. `None` if never reached. - `saturation_score` — final `cumulative_token_hit_count / len(curriculum)` after all corrections taught. Aggregate metrics across concepts: - `mean_corrections_to_first_hit` (across concepts that hit). - `mean_corrections_to_saturation` (across concepts that saturate). - `saturation_rate` — fraction of concepts that reach full coverage by curriculum end. - `replay_determinism` — fraction of snapshots where re-running the (curriculum-up-to-k, probe) sequence produces the same trace_hash. ## v1 thresholds (soft) Per the Phase 4 framework discipline ("Plot, do not threshold"), the lane does **not** have pass/fail thresholds in the usual sense. For monitoring purposes the report includes one structural gate: - `replay_determinism ≥ 0.95` — quantitative measurement is meaningful only when each data point is reproducible. Curve quality is reported as data; interpretation is left to the reader. ## Anti-overfitting (concept selection discipline) - Concepts are drawn from `en_core_cognition_v1` so the curriculum is grounded in the standard pack. - Public and holdouts use disjoint concept sets. - Each correction in a curriculum introduces exactly one new token from the expected-token set (no compound corrections inflate the score). - The probe form is fixed per concept and does not change between snapshots. ## Replay determinism Each snapshot (curriculum-up-to-k, probe) is run on a *fresh* `CognitiveTurnPipeline`. The same snapshot is re-run a second time on a second fresh pipeline; identical trace_hash is the structural-correctness gate for this lane. Without it the curve is not reproducible and the published numbers cannot be trusted. ## What this lane does not measure - Compositional generalisation (covered by compositionality). - Cross-domain transfer (covered by cross-domain-transfer). - Identity stability (covered by adversarial-identity). - Vault-cost scaling (covered by long-context-cost — Phase 4 follow-on lane). The discipline is narrow: how fast does *this concept* gain visible competence as corrections accumulate?