✗ Failed on benchmark 2026

Doubled-angle orientation order pooling

Implementation & benchmark of arXiv:2607.19681 — Perceived vertical and eye level as one orientation order parameter: a closed-form account of the Li-Matin rules for egocentric space

Usefulness7/10
Difficulty4/10
Novelty6/10

Source paper: Perceived vertical and eye level as one orientation order parameter: a closed-form account of the Li-Matin rules for egocentric space arXiv:2607.19681 ⓘ · analyzed Aug 30, 2026

AI-generated research hypothesis, automatically tested. Not peer-reviewed.

Idea description

Add a differentiable orientation-pooling layer after steerable filters or an orientation-bin expansion. It aggregates unoriented line evidence using doubled-angle vectors, so a feature at angle θ is identical to one at θ+π, while symmetric orientations cancel naturally instead of producing an arbitrary mean angle. Feed the network both the Cartesian order parameter and its magnitude-based confidence.

Formulas

$$E(\theta)=\sum_j A_j\,\kappa(\theta-\gamma_j),\qquad \theta\in[0,\pi),$$
$$c_1=\sum_j A_j e^{i2\gamma_j},\qquad \phi=\tfrac{1}{2}\arg c_1,$$
$$z(x)=\sum_{b=0}^{B-1} e_b(x)e^{i2\theta_b},\qquad q(x)=\frac{|z(x)|}{\sum_b e_b(x)+\varepsilon},$$

Mathematical statement

The paper models orientation energy as E(θ)=Σ_j A_j κ(θ−γ_j) on the half-circle [0,π), where A_j≥0 is the effective salience of inducer j, γ_j is its unoriented angle, and κ is an even, π-periodic tuning profile. Its first circular moment is c_1=Σ_j A_j exp(i2γ_j), and the perceived orientation is φ=(1/2)arg(c_1). The factor of two is required because γ≡γ+π, making the representation invariant to reversing a line. The resultant magnitude |c_1| measures agreement or confidence: it is large for aligned orientations and zero for exact cancellation, such as an equal pair at ±45°. For a neural feature with orientation-bin energies e_b≥0, use z=Σ_b e_b exp(i2θ_b), normalized confidence q=|z|/(Σ_b e_b+ε), and Cartesian channels (Re z, Im z, q); avoid differentiating through arg when |z| is small.

Implementation notes

Integrate this at one or more early or mid CNN stages, or before converting patch features into transformer tokens. First create B orientation-energy maps e_b(x)≥0, using fixed steerable convolutions, learned oriented kernels followed by softplus, or an existing filter bank; the bin centers are θ_b=bπ/B. Compute per spatial location: (1) r=Σ_b e_b; (2) z_R=Σ_b e_b cos(2θ_b); (3) z_I=Σ_b e_b sin(2θ_b); and (4) q=sqrt(z_R²+z_I²)/(r+ε). Concatenate [z_R/(r+ε), z_I/(r+ε), q] to the ordinary feature map, or replace the original orientation-bin channels with these three channels followed by a 1x1 projection. If an explicit angle is needed, calculate φ=(1/2)atan2(z_I,z_R) only when q>q_min, and use a zero angle plus a confidence mask otherwise. The mathematical quantities z_R, z_I, and q are computed exactly from the learned or fixed energies; no circular statistics need to be estimated. Optionally add an equivariance check by rotating an input by α and verifying that (z_R,z_I) rotates by 2α. The first experiment should use CIFAR-10 or MNIST-C with synthetic line and bar images and a small ResNet baseline. Train baseline angle-bin pooling, ordinary scalar averaging, and doubled-angle pooling at equal parameter count. Measure classification accuracy under line reversal, random 180-degree orientation flips, and mixtures of opposing orientations, plus calibration of q. Success is higher accuracy and lower orientation error on reversed and canceling stimuli without materially increasing FLOPs.

Verification

Failed on benchmark

Stage 1 · Toy mechanism gate: Passed ✓

Stage 2 · Mechanism transferred to benchmark: Not reproduced ✗

Stage 2 · Practical benchmark result: Inconclusive

Methodology: 8 paired seeds, permutation test (p<0.05) against a learning-rate-tuned baseline. How verification works

Stage 1 — Mechanism check agent confidence 9/10

Built differentiable doubled-angle pooling returning normalized Cartesian order channels and confidence, plus confidence-gated orientation recovery. Three predicted mechanisms were confirmed: exact π-reversal invariance (maximum error 0), equal-pair confidence q=|cos(delta)| (maximum discretization error 0.00619), and weighted resultant confidence (maximum error 0.00405); cancellation at 90° gives q≈5.6e-17. On the toy reversal-prototype task, pooling achieved 1.0 accuracy versus 0.03125 for directed-bin and scalar-average baselines, but no trained CNN or image benchmark was run.

Agent confidence
9/10
Baseline
Directed-bin reversal accuracy 0.03125; scalar-average reversal accuracy 0.03125
Idea
Doubled-angle pooling reversal accuracy 1.0; reversal max error 0.0; q=|cos(delta)| max error 0.00619; weighted-q max error 0.00405; exact cancellation q=5.55e-17; non-canceling orientation error <=0.223 degrees

Limitations: The experiment uses idealized orientation impulses and nearest-bin discretization, not natural images, learned steerable filters, or a trained CNN. FLOPs, optimization behavior, calibration, rotation equivariance under image transforms, and accuracy on CIFAR-10/MNIST-C were not tested.

How to run: python3 run_experiment.py

Stage 2 — Benchmark vs. tuned baseline (arXiv:2607.19681)

Ahead of the baseline (−35.0%) but not statistically significant (p=0.5437, wins 4 / 8 paired seeds).

Benchmark
Oriented_line_quotient
Model
cnn_small
Paired seeds
8
Baseline mean
0.1625
Idea mean
0.1056
Effect (Δ)
-0.0569 (−35.0%; negative = idea better)
Wins
4 / 8 paired seeds
p-value
0.5437 (permutation test, 20 000 shuffles)
Smallest detectable effect
n/a
Mechanism
Not confirmed ✗
Practical effect
Inconclusive
Baseline tuning
swept over 0 configs
Limitations:

The custom task is a small synthetic line-image classification benchmark, not natural-image CIFAR training. The benchmark used 400 training and 200 test samples for 8 epochs; no FLOP or wall-clock comparison was performed. The fixed Sobel bank and image discretization introduce boundary/rotation interpolation effects, which likely contributed to the failed strict equivariance signature. The baseline sweep used the harness's four-seed selection protocol followed by eight-seed final evaluation; the idea grid was evaluated on eight seeds for each configuration.

How to run: python3 stage2_orientation_bench.py

Verdict computed by deterministic test code from paired-seed statistics — not by the language model.

Stage 2 — Benchmark latest Failed ✗

Agent confidence: 9/10

Built an end-to-end doubled-angle orientation pooling system and a local structurally matched unoriented-line classification track. The idea reduced mean test error from 0.1625 to 0.105625 in the reported paired run, but the paired delta was not significant (p=0.54375), so there is no validated benchmark win. The trained-model mechanism signature also failed the chosen quantitative tolerances, despite q remaining relatively invariant.

Baseline
Best scalar-mean system: full 8-seed mean error 0.1625 (the displayed report was truncated; baseline best cfg lr=0.003, weight_decay=0.0).
Idea
Best doubled-angle system: 8-seed mean error 0.1056249989, cfg lr=0.003, weight_decay=0.0; paired delta=-0.0568749933, 4/8 wins, permutation p=0.54375; mechanism signature confirmed=false.

Benchmark result

Ahead of the baseline (−35.0%) but not statistically significant (p=0.5437, wins 4 / 8 paired seeds).

Benchmark
Oriented_line_quotient
Model
cnn_small
Paired seeds
8
Baseline mean
0.1625
Idea mean
0.1056
Effect (Δ)
-0.0569 (−35.0%; negative = idea better)
Wins
4 / 8 paired seeds
p-value
0.5437 (permutation test, 20 000 shuffles)
Smallest detectable effect
n/a
Mechanism
Not confirmed ✗
Practical effect
Inconclusive
Baseline tuning
swept over 0 configs
Limitations:

The custom task is a small synthetic line-image classification benchmark, not natural-image CIFAR training. The benchmark used 400 training and 200 test samples for 8 epochs; no FLOP or wall-clock comparison was performed. The fixed Sobel bank and image discretization introduce boundary/rotation interpolation effects, which likely contributed to the failed strict equivariance signature. The baseline sweep used the harness's four-seed selection protocol followed by eight-seed final evaluation; the idea grid was evaluated on eight seeds for each configuration.

How to run: python3 stage2_orientation_bench.py

Artifacts

Implementation overview ⬇ Download all as ZIP 8 files · code, reports and structured results