Skip to content

LcosmosS/S.T.A.R.-Labs: EXP-MAP-A01 — preregistration, activation and reproducibility package v0.1

Oct 2026 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Abstract

EXP-MAP-A01 — preregistration, activation and reproducibility package v0.1 Type: read-only review/reproducibility package, assembled against canonical main 7f1a03692539542e23b78263422f3be71da952ea. Authority: STAR_Research_Charter_v0-2.pdf, SHA-256 9a63284900d5349f1d307160929b2542885e4c751439b785369b722d349a5c03. Scientific scope: one preregistered arithmetic rank-permutation null test, not BSD proof, ACSC physical support, a cosmological prediction, SFR modeling, or a mathematical theorem. Canonical state (do not overwrite historical files) Preregistered: REPO-CSV-v0.2:EXP-MAP-A01, claim CLAIM-ACSC-001, dataset DATA-ARITHMETIC, parameters PAR-MAP-001, null NULL-MAP-001; protocol EXP-MAP-A01-prereg-v1. Approved activation: PR #78, approved by an off-author reviewer on its final diff and merged as 7f1a036. Both A01 and DATA-ARITHMETIC controlled-execution flags are true on this baseline. The activation is already recorded; this package does not recreate or confer that approval. Shared dataset: A03 is separately preregistered and remains execution-ineligible. Compatibility PR #87 preserves the original A03 dataset row hash and proves the permitted A01-only eligibility-bit transition. Support: all relevant controlled/physical support flags remain false. A permitted original run is not itself an accepted or independently replicated scientific result. Historical apparent contradiction: the October 4 preregistrations/EXP-MAP-A01/dataset_manifest.json and protocol say execution was disabled at the time of preregistration. Preserve those frozen bytes. Current operational authorization resides in the reviewed merged registry transition, not a rewrite of preregistration history. The PR #78 decision docket also retains pre-merge language. Frozen primary scientific specification Upstream JohnCremona/ecdata, commit 25cec5ecfec8b9f016eb1631ac633194c2bed39f, allcurves.00000-09999 SHA-256 259f3846329395b371e8079c77a6f1097adaebc98a054974573e241416efa968, 2,146,401 bytes, 64,687 source rows. Select curve number 1 per isogeny class, yielding 38,042 representatives; no post-hoc filtering. Primary embedding: longitude = 360 ln(|Delta|)/ln(10^30), latitude = 180 ln(N)/ln(10^9), elevation = 200 rank. Compute the unique undirected k=10 Euclidean base-neighbor graph with ASCII label tie-breaking and use T=-mean(|elevation_i-elevation_j|). Larger T indicates more local rank coherence. Regulator is not used. Null: 999 global rank permutations with one continuous splitmix64-fisher-yates-v1 state, seed 1729, fixed curve identities/discriminants/conductors/base graph and rank multiset. Infer p=(1+count(T_null >= T_obs))/1000, reject the specified null only when p<0.01. There is one preregistered endpoint; no retrospectively selected alternative mapping or interpretation. Authoritative source files: protocol.md, config.json, dataset_manifest.json, execution spec. This package references these files rather than copying a divergent scientific definition. Contents and verification SOURCE_MANIFEST.json: immutable source, exact source/row bindings, PR approval, merge and CI lineage. ACTIVATION_LINEAGE.md: human-readable governance history and A01/A03 coexistence. REPRODUCE.md: two-person original run and independent rerun handoff, hashes and admissible outcomes. REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md: reviewer acceptance and nonclaims. scripts/verify_exp_map_a01_release_package.py: read-only registry, source and hash verifier; tests; source-receipt CI. From the repository root, with the specified ecdata gitlink initialized and source hydrated: python scripts/verify_exp_map_a01_release_package.py --require-source --receipt /tmp/a01-package-read-only.json python -m unittest discover -s tests -p test_exp_map_a01_release_package.py -v The default invocation performs offline integrity checks using SHA-256 values independently pinned to the exact PR #78 merge, not mutable values copied from the package manifest or execution specs. Offline status=PASS does not mean that live GitHub approval has been authenticated; the receipt sets approval_verified_against_github=false and records its evidence level explicitly. The dedicated CI workflow adds --verify-github-approval and a read-only GITHUB_TOKEN. That mode must obtain PR #78's exact merged head, merge SHA, reviewer identity, final-head APPROVED review and timestamp from GitHub, and confirm PR #87's compatibility merge before it can issue a verified receipt. Network/API failures fail closed. The CI receipt therefore distinguishes verified live GitHub lineage from locally compared historical assertions. The original preregistration files, A01/A03 execution specs and charter PDF are each protected by independent hash constants in the verifier. Updating the manifest and spec together does not allow a different protocol to pass. Both commands must not invoke the registered A01 statistic, 999-permutation distribution, or production runner. Their PASS is source/software readiness evidence, not experimental reproduction. A failed check blocks use of this package; do not edit frozen values merely to obtain PASS. Evidence boundaries The source verifier and the merged activation CI do not contain an original investigator-A controlled result or a separate investigator-B manifest. No p-value, effect size, null distribution, independent replication or ACSC physical inference is claimed by this package. Follow the reproduction runbook only as a separate accountable controlled transaction, never in this PR or CI. Public release, GitHub approval, a DOI, numerical agreement or CI success must not automatically change Controlled_Support_Eligible or Physical_Support_Eligible. Charter §§12–15, 17, 28–31 govern nulls, parameter locking, negative outcomes, independent validation and reproducibility.

View source

Similar papers

#computer vision Review Sep 2017

Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis

This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.

P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al. · 727 citations · ⚡54
#computer vision Jun 2008

The impact of agile practices on communication in software development

The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.

M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al. · 401 citations · ⚡48
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54
#computer vision Review Mar 2008

Agile methods in European embedded software development organisations: a survey on the actual use and usefulness of Extreme Programming and Scrum

The results show that the embedded industry has been able to apply agile methods in its development processes and that the appreciation of the agile methods and their individual practices appears to increase once adopted and applied in practice.

O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson · 238 citations · ⚡9
#computer vision Open access Jul 2017

What happens when software developers are (un)happy

Consequences of happiness and unhappiness that are beneficial and detrimental for developers' mental well-being, the software development process, and the produced artifacts are found.

D. Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang et al. · 236 citations · ⚡13
#computer vision Open access Oct 2004

Mobile-D: an agile approach for mobile application development

The Mobile-D approach is briefly outlined here and the experiences gained from four case studies are discussed, which helped develop an agile development approach for mobile application development.

P. Abrahamsson, Antti Hanhineva, H. Hulkko et al. · 225 citations · ⚡18

Related blog posts

Microsoft Research Blog Oct 12, 2026

Simulating student learning for better AI tutoring

StudentSim is a research system for evaluating and improving AI tutoring tools before they are tested with learners. It models how individuals may engage with tutors, giving feedback to improve tutor performance across subjects like chess, writing, and mathematics. The post Simulating student learning for better AI tutoring appeared first on Microsoft Research.

GPT-Lab Sep 23, 2026

Requirements Don’t Live in Isolation: What We’re Exploring with Req-Space

Requirements in large systems rarely exist in isolation. Their meaning depends on the wider project context - other requirements, policies, decisions, tests, and implementation details. That becomes especially important when AI is used for review, because spotting a possible conflict or gap is only the beginning. ReqSpace explores how AI, visualisation, and connected project context can help reviewers understand those findings, trace the relationships behind them, and focus on the questions that…

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.