Research-Stack/6-Documentation/famm/NUVMAP_DELTA_DAG_SEARCH_COMPRESSOR.md
2026-05-16 16:05:53 -05:00

145 lines
2.9 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

# NUVMAP Delta-DAG Search Compressor
## Purpose
Make the NP-search acceleration stack explicitly shardable.
The stack is now:
```text
SEMANTIC_MASS_ROUTE_PLOW
→ 16D_CHAOS_GAME_FIELD_SHRINKER
→ DELTA_STREAM
→ NUVMAP_DAG
→ NOGOOD_SCAR_CACHE
→ EXACT_RECEIPT
```
The key distinction:
```text
Delta compression shrinks the path.
NUVMAP DAG shrinks the search topology.
```
## Why this tilts the needle
A normal backtracking solver creates a tree. Many branches can produce equivalent remaining subproblems. A tree repeats them.
A NUVMAP DAG stores projected state addresses and merges equivalent frontier basins:
```math
D_{\mathrm{NUVMAP}}
=
(V_{\mathrm{state}},E_{\Delta},h)
```
Each node is an addressed projected state:
```math
\nu_t
=
h(
G,
\text{assignment frontier},
\text{domains},
\text{scars},
\text{residual}
)
```
Each edge is only a legal delta:
```math
e_t=(\nu_t,\Delta_t,\nu_{t+1})
```
## FAMM object
```math
\mathfrak C_{\Delta\mathrm{DAG}}
=
A_{16}(u_G)
\otimes
[
\Sigma_G
+
\Sigma_{\Delta}
+
\Sigma_{\mathrm{NUV}}
+
\Sigma_{\mathrm{DAG}}
+
\Sigma_{\mathrm{nogood}}
+
\Sigma_{\mathrm{resid}}
+
\Sigma_{\mathrm{receipt}}
]
```
## NUVMAP address
```math
h_{\mathrm{NUV}}(s)
=
h(
\Pi_{\mathrm{frontier}}(s),
\Pi_{\mathrm{domain}}(s),
\Pi_{\mathrm{scar}}(s),
\Pi_{\mathrm{residual}}(s),
\Pi_{\mathrm{sym}}(s)
)
```
This is stronger than raw memoization because it does not ask only whether the state is byte-identical. It asks whether the projected route basin is equivalent.
## Sharding model
| Shard | Contents | Local verification |
|---|---|---|
| Base instance shard | graph / exact-cover / SAT instance | hash matches manifest |
| Route-rule shard | deterministic FAMM route rule and weights | rule hash matches manifest |
| NUVMAP node shard | projected frontier/domain/scar/residual address | node hash recomputes |
| Delta-edge shard | legal operation from parent to child | replay parent + delta → child |
| Nogood/scar shard | failed basin, contradiction, or forbidden transition | scar hash and projection match |
| Solution-path shard | ordered edge hashes | path joins from root to receipt |
| Exact receipt shard | final verifier output | residual = 0 |
## Multiplicative gain
```math
G_{\mathrm{total}}
=
G_{\mathrm{route}}
\cdot
G_{\Delta}
\cdot
G_{\mathrm{DAG}}
```
The earlier estimate was:
```text
FAMM route shortening: >= 393.7×
delta trace shrink: ~30×
```
So before DAG merging:
```text
>= 11,800× effective route-trace shrink
```
With NUVMAP DAG merging:
```text
40% redundant frontier states → ~20,000×
70% redundant frontier states → ~39,000×
```
These are architecture estimates, not proof of general-case NP collapse.
## No-drift boundary
This is not a P vs NP claim. It is a route/topology/receipt compression layer. Exactness still comes from the final verifier: graph coloring conflict count zero, exact cover residual zero, SAT formula satisfied, Lean proof accepted, or other domain-specific receipt.