Part 5: The Training Journey

From chaos to revelation: A chronicle of GDS learning

🌌 Epoch 1-2: The Genesis

The Birth of Structure from Chaos

In the beginning, there was dependency. The GDS reasoner, freshly initialized with synthetic reasoning patterns, leaned heavily on its bootstrap scaffolding. Natural data was scarce, and the model had no choice but to rely on the artificially generated inference pathways that gave it structure.

This is the Genesis Phase — where every query echoes through the synthetic corridors of the knowledge graph. The streamgraph visualization captures this dependency beautifully: the synthetic layer dominates, while natural data forms only a thin thread beneath.

  • Synthetic reliance: ~80% of inference came from bootstrap patterns
  • Natural signals: Barely visible in the early epochs
  • Core insight: The model wasn't learning yet—it was repeating

This is where the journey begins: a model that depends on its training wheels before it can learn to ride on its own.

Data Reliance Stream: Natural vs. Synthetic Inferences

đź“Š Epoch 1-3: The Twelve Paths

Mapping the Landscape of Query Costs

As training progressed, the model faced twelve archetypal queries—each representing a different semantic challenge. Some were simple, some were complex, and some were deliberately ambiguous.

The small multiples visualization reveals the divergent trajectories of these queries:

  • Q1-Q4: Low-cost queries with stable convergence
  • Q5-Q8: Mid-range complexity with fluctuating costs
  • Q9-Q12: High-cost outliers that resisted optimization

This was the first hint of a fundamental truth: not all queries are created equal. The model was learning, but selectively—favoring certain semantic patterns while struggling with others.

Query Cost Trajectories: Small Multiples View

🎯 Epoch 1-3: The Confidence Paradox

When Margins Stabilize But Paths Remain Costly

By Epoch 3, something unexpected emerged: the confidence margins stabilized. The model was becoming more certain about its chosen paths—but those paths were still expensive.

The confidence ribbon visualization captures this paradox beautifully:

  • Tightening ribbons: Variance decreased across epochs
  • Stable costs: But the mean path cost remained stubbornly high
  • The insight: The model was confidently wrong

This was the moment of realization: confidence is not correctness. The model had learned to be consistent, but it hadn't learned to be efficient. It was choosing expensive paths with unwavering certainty.

Confidence Margins: Path Cost Distribution Over Time

🏔️ The Ridgeline Revelation

Discovering the Three Performance Clusters

The ridgeline distribution revealed a hidden structure: three distinct performance clusters emerged across all epochs:

  • Low-Cost Peak: ~20% of queries converged to near-optimal paths
  • Mid-Range Plateau: ~50% hovered in mediocrity
  • High-Cost Outliers: ~30% remained stubbornly expensive

This trimodal distribution was the smoking gun. It revealed that the model wasn't learning uniformly—it was fragmenting the semantic space into easy, medium, and hard categories based on the quality of the underlying data.

The ridgeline told the story: data quality trumps algorithmic sophistication. No amount of training could fix queries that lacked semantic scaffolding in the knowledge graph.

Performance Distribution: Ridgeline Density Plot

🔍 The Pathfinder: Q4 Dissected

Inside the Inference Graph

Query 4 became the case study—a representative example of the model's reasoning process. The network graph visualization exposes the full inference pathway:

  • Start node: The query concept (highlighted in cyan)
  • Intermediate hops: Semantic bridges traversed during reasoning
  • End node: The final inferred concept
  • Edge weights: Costs determined by mass, VAD, and learning overlay

What the graph reveals is explainability by design. Unlike black-box neural networks, every step of the GDS reasoning process is auditable. You can see:

  1. Which concepts were considered
  2. Which edges were traversed
  3. Why certain paths were preferred over others

This is the promise of geometrodynamic semantics: reasoning that is not just powerful, but transparent.

Query 4 Pathfinding: Inference Graph Visualization

✨ Epilogue: The Path Forward

From Diagnosis to Solution

The training journey revealed a fundamental truth about machine learning: data quality trumps algorithmic sophistication.

The visualizations told a story of:

  • Synthetic dependence: 97% hallucinated connections
  • Uneven learning: Bimodal difficulty distribution
  • Confident ignorance: Stable margins on unstable foundations
  • Semantic voids: Unbridgeable gaps in the knowledge graph

The solution wasn't to train harder or longer. It was to enrich the semantic substrate:

  1. BabelNet integration: Expanded coverage from 15% to 80%
  2. Multi-lingual bridges: Connected isolated semantic islands
  3. Domain enrichment: Filled critical gaps in specialized vocabularies

The journey from v2 to v5 wasn't a story of algorithmic triumph. It was a story of diagnostic humility — learning to read the signals hidden in the noise, understanding that sometimes the model is telling you "I can't learn because you haven't given me what I need to know."

This is the art of machine learning: listening to what the data cannot say.

"