I think that what you mean here is a combination of the following:
CaSc fails to reject some false hypotheses, as already discussed.
Each node in the interpretation graph is only verified up to extensional equality. As in, if I claim that a single node in the graph is a whole sort function, I don’t learn anything about whether the model is implementing quicksort or mergesort.
But one way someone could interpret this sentence is that CaSc doesn’t distinguish between whether the model does quicksort or mergesort. This isn’t generally true—if your interpretation graph broke up its quicksort implementation into multiple nodes, then the CaSc experiment would fail to explain the model’s performance if the model itself was actually using merge sort.
Thanks for your work!
I think that what you mean here is a combination of the following:
CaSc fails to reject some false hypotheses, as already discussed.
Each node in the interpretation graph is only verified up to extensional equality. As in, if I claim that a single node in the graph is a whole sort function, I don’t learn anything about whether the model is implementing quicksort or mergesort.
But one way someone could interpret this sentence is that CaSc doesn’t distinguish between whether the model does quicksort or mergesort. This isn’t generally true—if your interpretation graph broke up its quicksort implementation into multiple nodes, then the CaSc experiment would fail to explain the model’s performance if the model itself was actually using merge sort.
Yes, this seem like a plausible confusion. Your interpretation of what we mean is correct.