Annealed-resonance recurrent dynamics
Implementation & benchmark of arXiv:2608.05649 — Annealed Ruelle-Pollicott Resonances
Source paper: Annealed Ruelle-Pollicott Resonances arXiv:2608.05649 ⓘ · analyzed Aug 31, 2026
AI-generated research hypothesis, automatically tested. Not peer-reviewed.
Idea description
Replace a deterministic recurrent transition by an iid-random family of transitions and explicitly control the spectrum of the corresponding annealed Koopman operator. Nontrivial eigenvalues inside the unit disk give a measurable exponential memory-decay envelope, while complex eigenvalues provide stable oscillatory memory modes useful for long-horizon sequence prediction.
Formulas
Mathematical statement
Let $\xi_t$ be iid random variables and let the hidden-state transition be $h_{t+1}=T_{\xi_t}(h_t)$. For an observable $\varphi$ on hidden states, define the annealed Koopman operator $(K\varphi)(h)=\mathbb{E}_{\xi}[\varphi(T_{\xi}(h))]$. Independence implies $\mathbb{E}[\varphi(h_n)\mid h_0]=K^n\varphi(h_0)$. If the centered operator $K_0$ has eigenvalues, called annealed resonances, $\lambda_j$ with $|\lambda_j|<1$, then correlations have the asymptotic form $C_n\approx\sum_j c_j\lambda_j^n$. Their envelope decays approximately as $\rho^n$, where $\rho=\max_j|\lambda_j|$; complex $\lambda_j=\rho e^{i\theta}$ produce decay rate $\rho$ and oscillation frequency $\theta$. The constant invariant feature with eigenvalue $1$ must be removed before imposing the stability constraint.
Implementation notes
1. Integration point: use a stochastic RNN or state-space model with $M$ transition branches, $h_{t+1}=T_{\xi_t,\theta}(h_t)$, where $\xi_t$ is sampled independently at each sequence step or per training example. Start with affine branches $T_m(h)=\tanh(A_mh+B_mx+b_m)$, and first perform the diagnostic with linear recurrent branches. 2. Pseudocode: roll out independent branch samples, collect feature vectors $z_t=\phi(h_t)$, and fit an empirical annealed Koopman matrix by ridge regression, $\widehat K=\arg\min_K\sum_t\|z_{t+1}-Kz_t\|^2+\alpha\|K\|_F^2$. Include a constant feature, estimate its invariant mode, then project that mode out. Compute eigenvalues $\widehat\lambda_j$ and add $L_{\mathrm{res}}=\gamma[\max(0,\max_j|\widehat\lambda_j|-\rho_*)]^2$. For oscillatory memory, add a penalty matching selected poles $\rho_*e^{\pm i\theta_*}$. 3. Computed from the paper: the averaged-operator construction, iid composition rule $K^n$, and resonance-to-correlation correspondence. Estimated empirically: the finite-feature Koopman matrix, invariant distribution, eigenvalues, and correlation coefficients $c_j$. 4. First cheap experiment: train a 32-unit stochastic RNN on adding and delayed-copy tasks, comparing a shared deterministic RNN, unconstrained random branches, and resonance-constrained branches. Measure hidden-state autocorrelations and test loss versus lag. The falsifiable prediction is that, after removing the constant mode, correlation envelopes follow $\rho^n$ and have half-life $n_{1/2}=\log(1/2)/\log\rho$ within about 20%. Instability or growing correlations should appear when the estimated spectral radius crosses $1$, while targeted complex poles should produce a spectral peak near frequency $\theta_*/(2\pi)$.
Verification
Stage 1 · Toy mechanism gate: Passed ✓
Stage 2 · Mechanism transferred to benchmark: Confirmed ✓
Stage 2 · Practical benchmark result: No measurable effect
Methodology: 8 paired seeds, permutation test (p<0.05) against a learning-rate-tuned baseline. How verification works
Stage 1 — Mechanism check agent confidence 8/10
Built an annealed linear recurrent-dynamics MVP with iid transition branches, exact branch averaging, Monte Carlo correlations, spectral/oscillation diagnostics, and a small delayed-copy readout comparison. The iid identity matched K^n with absolute sampling error 0.00194; predicted half-lives over rho=0.60–0.92 matched interpolated measurements within 4.7%; and the rho<1 versus rho>1 sweep tracked the predicted per-step amplitude ratios to about 1e-4. Complex-pole frequency estimates were close to theta/(2pi), but the annealed branches did not beat the deterministic baseline on delayed-copy MSE (0.9100 vs 0.9008), so this is mechanism confirmation rather than an observed task-level win.
- Agent confidence
- 8/10
- Baseline
- Delayed-copy test MSE: 0.900825; deterministic rho=0.94, theta=0.35
- Idea
- Delayed-copy test MSE: 0.909957; annealed 8 branches, mean rho=0.94, theta=0.35. Mechanism checks: K^8 abs error 0.001937; half-life relative errors 4.62%, 1.40%, 0.67%, 0.27% for rho=.60,.75,.85,.92; stability ratios observed/predicted: .91995/.92, .98993/.99, 1.01002/1.01, 1.07998/1.08
Limitations: This is a 2D linear toy system with a ridge-free exact constructed average rather than a trained nonlinear stochastic RNN. It does not test resonance regularization, learned branch parameters, adding tasks, long-horizon nonlinear prediction, invariant-feature projection, or compute/FLOP-normalized training. The oscillation diagnostic uses a short finite FFT sweep and has visible frequency-bin quantization.
How to run: python3 experiment.py
Stage 2 — Benchmark vs. tuned baseline (arXiv:2608.05649)
No significant difference vs. the tuned baseline (+0.8%, p=0.1772, wins 3 / 8 paired seeds).
- Benchmark
- Dynamics forecasting
- Model
- rnn_small
- Paired seeds
- 8
- Baseline mean
- 0.0074
- Idea mean
- 0.0074
- Effect (Δ)
- 0.0001 (+0.8%; negative = idea better)
- Wins
- 3 / 8 paired seeds
- p-value
- 0.1772 (permutation test, 20 000 shuffles)
- Smallest detectable effect
- ±1.4%
- Mechanism
- Confirmed ✓
- Practical effect
- No effect
- Baseline tuning
- swept over 3 configs
The available harness README was absent, so the protocol was reconstructed from installed bench source signatures. The compact run used 400 training examples, 200 test examples, 10 epochs, and four branches; it did not test larger hidden sizes, longer training, learned branch-specific matrices, targeted complex-pole matching, or longer-horizon prediction.
How to run: cd /home/maxwelhelp/all/math2nn/experiments/exp1854_annealed-resonance-recurrent-dynamics && /home/maxwelhelp/main/bin/python3 bench_run.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
Implemented the annealed recurrent dynamics intervention on the registered dynamics track using matched recurrent systems, iid transition branches, and a spectral-radius regularizer. The full 8-seed paired benchmark produced no measurable effect: idea MSE was slightly worse than the tuned baseline (0.0074324 vs 0.0073712), with delta_mean=+0.0000612 and permutation p=0.17715. The trained-model mechanism signature confirmed a subunit estimated transition radius, but the task metric did not improve.
- Baseline
- dynamics/rnn_small, tuned lr=0.006, mean test MSE 0.0073711863
- Idea
- annealed 4-branch recurrent model, lr=0.006, mean test MSE 0.0074324107
Benchmark result
No significant difference vs. the tuned baseline (+0.8%, p=0.1772, wins 3 / 8 paired seeds).
- Benchmark
- Dynamics forecasting
- Model
- rnn_small
- Paired seeds
- 8
- Baseline mean
- 0.0074
- Idea mean
- 0.0074
- Effect (Δ)
- 0.0001 (+0.8%; negative = idea better)
- Wins
- 3 / 8 paired seeds
- p-value
- 0.1772 (permutation test, 20 000 shuffles)
- Smallest detectable effect
- ±1.4%
- Mechanism
- Confirmed ✓
- Practical effect
- No effect
- Baseline tuning
- swept over 3 configs
The available harness README was absent, so the protocol was reconstructed from installed bench source signatures. The compact run used 400 training examples, 200 test examples, 10 epochs, and four branches; it did not test larger hidden sizes, longer training, learned branch-specific matrices, targeted complex-pole matching, or longer-horizon prediction.
How to run: cd /home/maxwelhelp/all/math2nn/experiments/exp1854_annealed-resonance-recurrent-dynamics && /home/maxwelhelp/main/bin/python3 bench_run.py
Artifacts
- bench_report.json 3.0 KB View Raw
- bench_run.py 5.6 KB View Raw
- experiment.py 5.1 KB View Raw
- report.md 1.8 KB View
- report_bench_2026-08-31T210803.md 4.8 KB View
- results.json 2.8 KB View Raw