Polynomial-Lyapunov Training Controller
Implementation & benchmark of arXiv:2609.03120 — On a Gradation for Asymptotic Stability
Source paper: On a Gradation for Asymptotic Stability arXiv:2609.03120 ⓘ · analyzed Sep 4, 2026
AI-generated research hypothesis, automatically tested. Not peer-reviewed.
Idea description
Treat the optimization error as a Lyapunov-like state and adapt the learning rate so that its measured decrease follows a chosen stability degree. Instead of requiring exponential decrease, the controller targets dE/dt approximately equal to -c E^(1+m), which is appropriate near flat minima or marginally stable training regimes where exponential contraction may be impossible.
Formulas
Mathematical statement
Let E(t) be a nonnegative training error, c greater than zero a dissipation constant, and m greater than or equal to zero the stability degree. If dE/dt is at most -c E^(1+m), comparison theory gives exponential decay E(t) at most E(0) exp(-ct) for m equal to zero, and algebraic decay E(t) at most [E(0)^(-m) + mct]^(-1/m) for m greater than zero. In a discrete optimizer, estimate c at step k by c_hat_k = (E_k - E_(k+1)) divided by delta_t E_k^(1+m). Adjust the step size toward a target c_star while rejecting steps that violate monotonic decrease. The measurable asymptotic signature is a log-log slope of -1/m for m greater than zero.
Implementation notes
Integrate this controller into SGD or Adam after computing a minibatch gradient but before permanently applying the update. Maintain a nonnegative monitored error E_k: on supervised learning use the current loss minus a running lower bound, clipped below by epsilon_E. Pseudocode: compute gradient g_k; propose theta_trial = theta_k - eta_k g_k; evaluate a small fixed monitoring minibatch and obtain E_trial; compute c_hat = (E_k - E_trial)/(E_k^(1+m) delta_t); reject the proposal and halve eta if E_trial exceeds E_k; otherwise accept it and update eta using the displayed multiplicative controller toward c_star. Smooth c_hat with an exponential moving average to reduce minibatch noise. The Lyapunov comparison law and degree interpretation come from the paper; c_star, the loss floor, smoothing coefficient, and rejection thresholds are empirical. First run a two-layer MLP on MNIST and a small ResNet on CIFAR-10, comparing SGD, Adam, and controllers with m equal to 0, 1, and 2. Plot loss on log-linear and log-log axes. The falsifiable prediction is exponential decay for m equal to zero and a final log-log slope near -1/m for m greater than zero; estimate the slope over the final third of training and require agreement within 20 percent. Also test learning rates around the acceptance boundary: the controller should reject steps when c_hat becomes nonpositive, and the measured transition from stable to divergent updates should be reproducible across random seeds.
Verification
Stage 1 · Toy mechanism gate: Failed ✗
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 9/10
Built a polynomial-Lyapunov controller with monitoring-batch rejection, EMA-smoothed c-hat, adaptive learning rate, and an exact comparison-law sanity check. The toy ODE discretization matched c=0.25 closely and produced algebraic log-log slopes near the predicted -1/m for m=1 and m=2. However, in the digits MLP experiment the controller was worse than fixed-step SGD for two of three seeds; m=2 improved once but not reproducibly, while rejection rates were high and learning rates often collapsed.
- Agent confidence
- 9/10
- Baseline
- Seed 3126 test loss 0.1824; seed 7 0.1987; seed 42 0.2072; fixed eta=0.12, no rejections.
- Idea
- Best observed m=2 test loss 0.1622 on seed 3126, but 0.3208 on seed 7 and 0.2655 on seed 42; rejection rates 45.6%-50.6% and final eta frequently 0.0001.
Limitations: Only a small sklearn digits MLP was tested, not MNIST or CIFAR-10/ResNet; only three seeds and 500 steps were used. c_star was manually calibrated separately for each m, no wall-clock/FLOP comparison or learning-rate boundary sweep was performed, and the asymptotic slope claim was verified on the exact toy ODE rather than reliably measured in neural-network training.
How to run: SEED=3126 /home/maxwelhelp/main/bin/python3 experiment.py
Verdict computed by deterministic test code from paired-seed statistics — not by the language model.
Artifacts
- experiment.py 4.2 KB View Raw
- report.md 1.4 KB View
- results.json 1.8 KB View Raw