Mixed-Subgroup Conservation Router
Implementation & benchmark of arXiv:2609.02630 — An Affine Semigroup from Orbifold Boundary Conditions: cut, phylogenetic and hierarchical models in the unit-weight sector, and weighted configurations beyond them
Source paper: An Affine Semigroup from Orbifold Boundary Conditions: cut, phylogenetic and hierarchical models in the unit-weight sector, and weighted configurations beyond them arXiv:2609.02630 ⓘ · analyzed Sep 3, 2026
AI-generated research hypothesis, automatically tested. Not peer-reviewed.
Idea description
Replace an unconstrained Cartesian-product router over heterogeneous branches with a router whose joint expert or state assignments obey a finite-group conservation rule. Branch i emits a distribution over labels in its own subgroup H_i of a common finite abelian group G; only tuples whose group sum is zero are retained. This gives an exact, differentiable structural prior for modular arithmetic, multi-relational graphs, multi-view fusion, or any setting where latent labels compose by a conservation law.
Formulas
Mathematical statement
The paper defines the mixed-order configuration $\mathcal{A}(G;H_1,\ldots,H_l)=\{(g_1,\ldots,g_l):g_i\in H_i,\ \sum_{i=1}^l g_i=0\}$, where G is a finite abelian group written additively, H_i is the subgroup available to branch i, l is the number of branches, and equality is in G. The ordinary group-based model is the special case H_i=G for every i; heterogeneous cone orders correspond to proper subgroups on different leaves. Implement the same configuration as a masked product distribution: branch i produces probabilities p_i(g_i) for g_i in H_i, and the joint probability is proportional to the product of branch probabilities on valid tuples and zero elsewhere. The conservation constraint is exact, while gradients remain available through normalization. For G=Z_m, membership and the constraint are integer modular arithmetic: g_i is in {0,...,m-1} and the sum is congruent to zero modulo m.
Implementation notes
Integrate the layer immediately before MoE expert selection or multimodal or relational feature fusion. Assume l input branch tensors x_i with shape [batch, hidden]. Choose a small finite abelian group, initially G=Z_4 or Z_8, and define subgroup masks H_i. For Z_m, use the subgroup of size d_i dividing m, represented by {0,m/d_i,2m/d_i,...,(d_i-1)m/d_i}. Each branch has a linear classifier producing logits a_i over H_i, followed by p_i=softmax(a_i). Enumerate valid tuples A once at initialization. For each batch item, compute log weights s(g_1,...,g_l)=sum_i log p_i(g_i), set s=-infinity outside A, and obtain q=softmax(s over A). Associate every valid tuple with either an expert index or a learned code e_tuple. Compute y=sum_tuple q_tuple e_tuple, then use y to gate experts or add it to the fused hidden representation. Pseudocode: logits_i=Linear_i(x_i); p_i=softmax(logits_i); scores=stacked_sum(log(p_i) indexed by A); q=softmax(scores); y=q @ E; output=MoE(x, gate=y) or LayerNorm(concat(x_i)+Proj(y)). For large l, avoid full Cartesian enumeration by dynamically programming the modular sum: repeatedly convolve branch distributions on G, then recover tuple samples with a constrained beam or compute exact marginal probabilities using the probability that the remaining branches cancel the current label. The paper supplies the exact support constraint; all neural logits, code vectors, and expert weights are learned. First test on a synthetic compositional classification task where three branches contain Z_4 labels and the target is their zero-sum class, comparing an unconstrained Cartesian router, a masked router with H_i=G, and mixed subgroups such as sizes (4,2,2). Then test a small relational GNN on modular addition or colored-edge composition. Measure validation accuracy at fixed samples, number of active joint states, routing entropy, and wall-clock cost. Success means faster learning and higher accuracy when the conservation rule is correct, with no degradation on a control task using randomized labels.
Verification
This idea has not been verified yet.
Verification happens in two stages: Stage 1 — a mechanism check on a toy system confirms the claimed mathematical phenomenon reproduces; Stage 2 — a benchmark implements the idea on a real (small) neural network task and compares it against a tuned baseline over 8 paired seeds with a permutation test.
Artifacts
Artifacts unavailable.