Numerical-Range Stabilization for Nonnormal State Dynamics
Implementation & benchmark of arXiv:2608.27346 — Square Functions and the Complete Crouzeix Conjecture in Dimension Three
Source paper: Square Functions and the Complete Crouzeix Conjecture in Dimension Three arXiv:2608.27346 ⓘ · analyzed Aug 29, 2026
AI-generated research hypothesis, automatically tested. Not peer-reviewed.
Idea description
Replace spectral-radius-only stabilization of a recurrent or state-space transition matrix with a numerical-range constraint. Penalize directions in which the Hermitian part of a rotated transition matrix has a large maximal eigenvalue, controlling nonnormal transient amplification and polynomial state propagation.
Formulas
Mathematical statement
The paper defines the numerical range of a complex matrix A by W(A) = {<Ax,x> : ||x|| = 1}, where <.,.> is the Euclidean complex inner product. Its Crouzeix inequality states that for every complex polynomial p, ||p(A)|| <= 2 max_{z in W(A)} |p(z)|. The support function of W(A) in direction exp(i theta) is h_A(theta) = lambda_max(Re(exp(-i theta) A)), where Re(B) = (B + B*)/2, B* is the conjugate transpose, and lambda_max is the largest eigenvalue. For a learned transition matrix A, penalize violations of h_{A-cI}(theta) <= r over a grid of angles. If W(A-cI) lies in the radius-r disk, the Crouzeix inequality gives ||p(A-cI)|| <= 2 max_{|z|<=r} |p(z)| for every polynomial p. In particular, for p(z)=z^k, ||(A-cI)^k|| <= 2r^k, giving a finite-horizon stability certificate even for nonnormal A.
Implementation notes
Integrate the regularizer into the transition operator of a linear state-space model or Elman-style RNN, specifically the matrix A in h_{t+1}=A h_t+B x_t. Choose center c and radius r; for contractive dynamics use c=0 and r<1, while for oscillatory systems choose c near the desired eigenvalue cluster. At each training step compute: loss = task_loss; nr = 0; for each theta in linspace(0, 2*pi, m, endpoint=False), form H = 0.5*(exp(-1j*theta)*(A-c*I) + exp(1j*theta)*(A.conj().T-conj(c)*I)); compute h = largest_eigenvalue(H); accumulate nr += relu(h-r)**2; then optimize loss + lambda_nr*nr/m. For hidden dimensions up to roughly 256, use a dense Hermitian eigensolver. For larger dimensions, estimate the largest eigenvalue with 3-10 Lanczos or power iterations, warm-starting each angular direction from the previous step. The exact mathematical quantity is the support function h_A(theta); the finite angular grid approximates the supremum over all directions, so evaluate a denser grid after training to detect missed violations. The first cheap experiment should use 64- or 128-dimensional linear SSMs and tanh RNNs on sequential or permuted MNIST, comparing this method against eigenvalue clipping and spectral normalization at equal parameter count and optimizer budget. Measure training-loss descent, gradient-norm spikes, activation growth, rollout norms ||A^k|| for k up to 1000, and validation accuracy. Use deliberately nonnormal upper-triangular initializations to expose the difference from spectral-radius control. Success means fewer transient explosions, lower worst-case rollout amplification, and improved long-horizon accuracy without reducing short-horizon performance. Ablate lambda_nr, angular-grid size m, center c, and radius r.
Verification
Stage 1 · Toy mechanism gate: Passed ✓
Stage 2 · Mechanism transferred to benchmark: Not tested
Stage 2 · Practical benchmark result: Not run
Methodology: Toy-system gate first; the benchmark stage runs only after a pass. How verification works
Stage 1 — Mechanism check agent confidence 8/10
Built a CPU-scale linear SSM comparison between spectral-radius regularization and the angular numerical-range penalty. The Jordan-block check matched the numerical range to 1e-16 and verified the Crouzeix power bound through k=8. In the matched-seed experiment, numerical-range stabilization reduced dense-grid support from 1.272 to 0.780 and maximum 80-step amplification from 2.23 to 1.27, while also achieving lower final task loss (8.56e-5 vs 1.17e-4); this is a promising but small-scale win.
- Agent confidence
- 8/10
- Baseline
- final task loss 1.1743e-4; best loss 1.0182e-4; spectral radius 0.6765; dense max support 1.2715; max ||A^k|| for k<=80 2.2321
- Idea
- final task loss 8.5643e-5; best loss 4.3732e-5; spectral radius 0.7086; dense max support 0.7796; max ||A^k|| for k<=80 1.2729
Limitations: Only one fixed seed, one synthetic linear reconstruction task, one radius/lambda/grid setting, and a 24-dimensional model were tested. The baseline used a differentiable eigenvalue-modulus penalty rather than explicit spectral normalization or eigenvalue clipping; no MNIST, long-horizon generalization, FLOP-normalized study, ablations, or larger models were evaluated.
How to run: python3 experiment.py
Verdict computed by deterministic test code from paired-seed statistics — not by the language model.
Artifacts
- experiment.py 4.5 KB View Raw
- report.md 1.4 KB View