39bf549e94
Extends ADR-0131.G.5's total-across aggregate branch with the existential
verb frame 'How many <unit> are there <cue>?' over the SAME closed cue
vocabulary (no cue-set widening). The solver already sums entity=None
total-across; the wall was purely the question parser's verb-frame coverage.
- Composes end-to-end: 'Jamie has 28 marbles. Kyle has 12 marbles. How many
marbles are there in total?' -> 40.0 (load-bearing, not inert).
- 23 real GSM8K problems now parse the question (advance past the Q-wall to
the statement-parse wall).
- wrong=0 HOLDS on the full 7,473-q corpus; train_sample byte-identical
4/46/0; no metric delta (composition-wall lesson, third instance).
- Cross-ADR discipline: 'What is the total number of <unit>?' is DEFERRED,
not contradicted — ADR-0131.G.5 pins it as a refusal probe; promoting it
must amend that ADR's closed-cue contract. test_total_number_of_still_deferred
locks the boundary.
Firewall: completeness guard (ADR-0191) + question round-trip refuse conjoined
('dogs and cats') and derived ('animal legs') units. G5 lane + synthetic-registry
wrong=0 capability-axis gate green; smoke 67 passed.
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
120 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
120 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
# ADR-0193 — Aggregate total-across: the existential question frame
|
||
|
||
**Status:** Proposed (implemented in this PR).
|
||
**Parent / extends:** [ADR-0131.G.5 — Aggregate Answer Composition](./ADR-0131.G.5-aggregate-answer-composition.md).
|
||
**Builds on:** [ADR-0191](./ADR-0191-candidate-graph-completeness-guard.md)
|
||
(completeness firewall) and [ADR-0192](./ADR-0192-discrete-count-open-noun-class.md)
|
||
(open-vocabulary possession statements).
|
||
**Substrate-with-compose: train_sample byte-identical 4/46/0; full-corpus
|
||
wrong=0 HOLDS; the frame composes end-to-end (proven below) and advances 23
|
||
real problems past the question wall.**
|
||
|
||
> **One line.** The solver already aggregates a total-across unknown
|
||
> (`Unknown(entity=None, unit=X)` sums every matching-unit state entry), and
|
||
> ADR-0131.G.5 wired exactly one verb frame for it — `"...do they have
|
||
> <cue>?"` — over a closed cue vocabulary. The equally common GSM8K
|
||
> *existential* frame, `"How many <unit> are there <cue>?"`, produced zero
|
||
> question candidates and refused at the question stage. This adds that frame
|
||
> over the **same closed cues** (no cue-vocabulary widening).
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 1. The gap (microscope finding, 2026-05-30)
|
||
|
||
The full-corpus microscope (`scripts/gsm8k_microscope.py`, ADR-0191) partitions
|
||
the serving reader's refusals. Among the 46 refusing `train_sample` cases,
|
||
exactly **5 are pure question-stage walls** (all statements parse, only the
|
||
question refuses): 0007, 0008, 0009, 0025, 0035 — each needing a *different*
|
||
solver capability (rate-division, comparative+algebra, inverse target-state,
|
||
multiplicative-aggregate). None is a simple total-across aggregate.
|
||
|
||
On the **full 7,473-question** corpus, however, ~60 problems close with an
|
||
explicit aggregate cue in a frame the parser did not recognise:
|
||
|
||
| surface | count | status before |
|
||
|---------|------:|---------------|
|
||
| `"How many <unit> are there <cue>?"` | ~31 | refused at question stage |
|
||
| `"What is the total number of <unit>?"` | ~29 | refused (ADR-0131.G.5 probe) |
|
||
|
||
The solver path for both is identical to the working `"do they have <cue>"`
|
||
form — `_resolve_unknown` sums `entity=None` across all matching-unit state.
|
||
The wall was purely the **question parser's verb-frame coverage**.
|
||
|
||
## 2. Decision
|
||
|
||
Add one question pattern, `_Q_THERE_RE` in `generate/math_candidate_parser.py`:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
^How many <unit:1-2 words> are there <agg-cue>{1,2}?$
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
- `<agg-cue>` is the **same closed vocabulary** ADR-0131.G.5 established —
|
||
`in total`, `altogether`, `combined`, `together`, plus the long-standing
|
||
`in all`. This ADR does **not** widen the cue set; it adds a verb frame.
|
||
- The cue is **required** (`{1,2}` occurrences). The bare `"are there?"` form
|
||
is deliberately NOT admitted — it is too ambiguous to map to total-across,
|
||
and ADR-0131.G.5 pins it (`G5-refuse-004`) as a refusal probe, which still
|
||
refuses unchanged.
|
||
- Maps to `Unknown(entity=None, unit=<canonical>)` — identical to the working
|
||
frame.
|
||
|
||
### Why this is safe (the firewall is the precondition)
|
||
|
||
`wrong=0` is held downstream, not by the question form:
|
||
- **question round-trip** (`_question_admissible`) requires the unit token to
|
||
ground in the question span; a conjoined unit (`"dogs and cats"`) fails the
|
||
1–2-word match and refuses;
|
||
- **completeness guard** (ADR-0191) requires every source quantity to be
|
||
consumed — a derived unit (`"animal legs"`, needing legs-per-animal
|
||
multiplication) leaves a quantity uncovered and refuses (verified: the one
|
||
full-corpus case reaching the guard, "Adlai has 2 dogs and 1 chicken… how
|
||
many animal legs are there in all?", correctly refuses);
|
||
- **branch disagreement** refuses any competing reading.
|
||
|
||
## 3. What this deliberately does NOT do (ADR cross-reference)
|
||
|
||
`"What is the total number of <unit>?"` is **NOT** admitted here, even though
|
||
the solver would sum it correctly. ADR-0131.G.5 pins that exact surface as an
|
||
out-of-closed-cue **refusal probe** (`tests/test_adr_0131_G5_aggregate.py::
|
||
TestMismatchedUnitRefusal::test_outside_closed_cue_refuses`, case
|
||
`G5-refuse-002`). Promoting it is a correct future step, but it must **amend
|
||
ADR-0131.G.5's closed-cue contract** — it must not be contradicted from this
|
||
branch. `test_total_number_of_still_deferred` locks that boundary so this ADR
|
||
cannot silently break the parallel lane.
|
||
|
||
This is the discipline the standing doctrine requires ("no contradicting
|
||
in-use ADRs"): the non-conflicting verb-frame ships now; the cue-contract
|
||
change is surfaced for the ADR-0131.G owner.
|
||
|
||
## 4. Evidence
|
||
|
||
- **Composes end-to-end:** "Jamie has 28 marbles. Kyle has 12 marbles. How
|
||
many marbles are there in total?" → **40.0** (proof the frame is
|
||
load-bearing, not inert — any multi-possession problem now solves once its
|
||
statements parse).
|
||
- **23 real problems** now parse the question (advance from the question wall
|
||
to their next wall — statement parsing).
|
||
- **wrong=0 HOLDS** on the full 7,473-question corpus; `train_sample`
|
||
byte-identical **4/46/0**; full-corpus correct unchanged at 4.
|
||
- **No metric delta on train_sample** — no `train_sample` case has the
|
||
(existential-aggregate + all-statements-parsing) shape. This is the recurring
|
||
composition-wall lesson (ADR-0190 / #497, now quantified a third time): a
|
||
single-layer widening advances problems but flips none; every flip needs the
|
||
conjunction of statement-parse + question + solver.
|
||
- **Tests:** `tests/test_aggregate_total_question_forms.py` (frame emits
|
||
total-across over each closed cue; composes; conjoined/derived units refuse;
|
||
`total number of` stays deferred). ADR-0131.G.5 lane and the synthetic-registry
|
||
`wrong=0` capability-axis gate both green.
|
||
|
||
## 5. Consequences & follow-ups
|
||
|
||
- The aggregate branch's **existential frame** is now complete; the remaining
|
||
aggregate gap is statement-parsing for the 23 advanced problems — dominated
|
||
by **conjunction-of-possessions** ("X has A and B"; ADR-0192 left compound
|
||
closed) and **container-subject possessions** ("Jar A has 28 marbles"; the
|
||
entity recognizer rejects the `Noun + label` subject). The proven compose
|
||
case shows that closing *either* statement gap flips real multi-container /
|
||
multi-category aggregate problems.
|
||
- **Surfaced for the ADR-0131.G owner:** amend the closed-cue contract to admit
|
||
`"What is the total number of <unit>?"` (solver-correct; ~29 real cases),
|
||
retiring `G5-refuse-002` as a stale conservatism probe.
|