Higher-density priors (B10) are more robust to cross-base OOD drops than lower-density ones (B9) after fine-tuning

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Cross-base fine-tuning yields asymmetric transfer: B10 transfers most robustly, B9 leastfinding0.793
  In-base gains accompanied by uneven OOD drops; higher-density priors more robust.
• Strong priors require higher-cohesion anchors to overcome, manifesting as delayed thresholds or reduced transferhypothesis0.768
  Prediction for Experiment 1 cross-domain anchoring
• Hypothesis: Fine-tuning reduces mismatch dr between prior and targethypothesis0.757
  UCCT's theoretical prediction about how fine-tuning maps onto the anchoring score
• k50 ordering: B10 (0.28) < B8 (1.83) < B9 (2.91) follows pretraining densityfinding0.757
  Monotone ordering consistent with k50 ∝ dr/ρd.
• Transition widths ∆k increase with mismatch D(P0 ∥ PT), evidenced by wider widths from B10 to B9claim0.747
  Interpretive claim linking phase width in E2 to mismatch term in UCCT
• Cross-base transfer: B10 transfers most robustlyfinding0.746
  B10 fine-tuning yields smallest OOD drops when transferring to other bases
• Hypothesis: Shot midpoint ordering k50(B10) < k50(B8) ≈ k50(B9) follows pretraining exposure densityhypothesis0.744
  E2 prediction that bases with higher pretraining exposure require fewer shots to cross threshold
• Dense but off-task anchors yield high ρd AND high dr; behavior does not improve, consistent with mismatch dominating Sfinding0.743
  E3 negative control validating that both ρd AND dr must be favorable for S to exceed Sc