%% SCRAP: experiments/campaigns/shape_validation/README
%% SOURCE: docs/working/experiments/campaigns/shape_validation/README.md
%% STATUS: CURRENT
%% FITS: experiments/ch-factorial
%% EDITORIAL: lifted — prose rewritten to press voice
\section{Workload Shape Validation Experiment}
This experiment tests how a single StarForth configuration responds to
four distinct workload patterns (``shapes''), validating that the adaptive
runtime adjusts appropriately to workload characteristics rather than
locking to a fixed operating point.
\textbf{Configuration tested:} C37 (binary \texttt{0100101}) — L2
(Rolling Window), L5 (Window Inference), and L7 (Adaptive Heartrate)
enabled; all other loops off.
\textbf{Recommended replicates:} 100--300 per workload.
\textbf{Reference commit:} \texttt{161a3667}.
\subsection{Workload Shapes}
\begin{description}
\item[Baseline (\texttt{init.4th}).]
Standard DoE benchmark. Mixed arithmetic and control flow, moderate
complexity, predictable pattern. Expected: moderate window size
($\sim$1{,}024--2{,}048) and stable heartbeat ($\sim$1\,ms ticks).
\item[Square Wave (\texttt{init-1.4th}).]
Alternates between simple and complex operations on every other
iteration. Expected: larger window to capture the alternation
pattern; more frequent heartbeats during transitions.
\item[Triangle Wave (\texttt{init-2.4th}).]
Gradually increasing then decreasing complexity (ramp up, ramp
down). Expected: window size tracking the complexity ramp; heartbeat
slowing during stable ramps and accelerating at the inflection point.
\item[Damped Sine (\texttt{init-3.4th}).]
Oscillating complexity that decreases over time via amplitude
damping. Expected: window shrinking as amplitude decays; heartbeat
rate increasing as the workload stabilizes.
\end{description}
\subsection{Running the Experiment}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
cd experiments/shape_validation
# Standard validation (100 reps x 4 workloads = 400 runs)
./run_shapes.sh 100
# Quick exploratory (30 reps, ~5 minutes)
./run_shapes.sh 30
# High precision (300 reps x 4 = 1200 runs)
./run_shapes.sh 300
\end{lstlisting}
Results land in \texttt{shape\_run\_<TIMESTAMP>/shape\_results.csv}.
\subsection{Expected Results}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
Workload & Expected ns/word & Expected Window & Expected CV \\
\midrule
Baseline & $\sim$125 & 1{,}024--2{,}048 & $\sim$0.02 \\
Square Wave & $\sim$130+ & $\geq$2{,}048 & $>$0.03 \\
Triangle & $\sim$128 & 1{,}536 & $\sim$0.025 \\
Damped Sine & $\sim$122 & 2{,}048 → 512 & $\sim$0.018 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Key validation: window width must vary significantly across shapes
(ANOVA $p < 0.05$), demonstrating that L5 responds to workload dynamics
rather than holding a fixed window.
\subsection{Success Criteria}
\begin{enumerate}
\item L5 (Window Inference) produces statistically distinct window widths
across shapes (ANOVA $p < 0.05$).
\item Square-wave workload yields a larger window than baseline.
\item Damped-sine workload yields a smaller window than baseline.
\item CV remains below 10\% for all shapes (no instability).
\end{enumerate}
