Golden-Ratio Constrained Weight Storage
Implementation & benchmark of arXiv:2607.08795 — Intrinsic Redundancy and Local Robustness in Finite $β$-Expansion Systems
Source paper: Intrinsic Redundancy and Local Robustness in Finite $β$-Expansion Systems arXiv:2607.08795 ⓘ · analyzed Aug 30, 2026
AI-generated research hypothesis, automatically tested. Not peer-reviewed.
Idea description
Store quantized magnitudes as finite golden-ratio digit strings satisfying the no-adjacent-ones constraint, rather than as unconstrained binary words. A local rewrite pass converts equivalent but invalid patterns such as 011 into 100, making illegal adjacent-one patterns detectable after memory faults while preserving the represented scalar. This is a storage-integrity and decoding scheme, not a claim that canonicalization alone can correct arbitrary bit flips.
Formulas
Mathematical statement
For the golden-ratio base \(\varphi=(1+\sqrt{5})/2\), the identity \(\varphi^2=\varphi+1\) induces the value-preserving rewrite \(100\leftrightarrow011\). For a digit vector \(d=(d_i)_{i\in I_{L,R}}\), with digits \(d_i\in\{0,1\}\) and finite index window \(I_{L,R}=\{-R,\ldots,L\}\), define its semantic value by \(V(d)=\sum_{i\in I_{L,R}}d_i\varphi^i\). The canonical codebook is \(C_\varphi^{L,R}=\{d\in\{0,1\}^{I_{L,R}}:d_i d_{i+1}=0\text{ for every adjacent pair in the window}\}\), i.e. no adjacent ones. The rewrite \(011\to100\) preserves \(V(d)\) but maps an ambient representation back toward canonical admissibility. For a burst of width \(b\), the paper defines start positions \(J_{L,R}(b)=\{-R,\ldots,L-b+1\}\), interval \(B_{j,b}=\{j,\ldots,j+b-1\}\), and corruption mask \(\varepsilon\in\{0,1\}^b\setminus\{0^b\}\); the corrupted state is \(F^{\varepsilon}_{j,b}(d)_i=F_i(d)_i\) when \(i\in B_{j,b}\) and \(\varepsilon_i=1\), and equals \(d_i\) otherwise. The paper's cascade example \((01)^m\underline{1}010\to(01)^{m-1}10^310\to\cdots\to10^{2m+1}10\) shows that local rewrites can have \(\Theta(W)\) sequential latency for word width \(W=2m+4\), so the implementation must measure both detection rate and propagation cost.
Implementation notes
Integrate this at the quantizer-to-storage boundary for binary or low-bit weights, activation snapshots, or KV-cache blocks. First choose a scale \(s>0\) and represent each nonnegative quantized magnitude \(q\in[0,Q]\) by a finite golden-ratio expansion \(q\approx s\sum_{i=-R}^{L}d_i\varphi^i\), storing one sign bit separately for signed weights. Precompute a scalar lookup table mapping each ordinary integer or uniform quantization bin to the nearest admissible codeword in \(C_\varphi^{L,R}\); the table is feasible for small widths and can later be replaced by a finite-state encoder. On encoding, run a canonicalizer that repeatedly scans for 011 and replaces it with 100, carrying into neighboring positions when necessary. Store the resulting digit string plus scale and sign. On readback, first test every adjacent pair; an occurrence of 11 marks the word as structurally corrupted. Optionally run the inverse normalization pass 011-to-100 until no rule applies, but do not claim that this corrects arbitrary errors: a valid 1-to-0 flip can remain canonical and is semantically ambiguous, exactly as the paper's injectivity argument predicts. For stronger correction, append a small parity or CRC field and use it to request retransmission or select a redundant codeword. Benchmark a 4-layer MLP and a small CNN on MNIST or CIFAR-10 against int8 and packed binary storage at equal quantization error. Inject random single-bit and contiguous burst faults into stored weights after every checkpoint or into activation buffers during inference. Measure packed bits per parameter, fraction of faults detected by the adjacency test, post-fault accuracy, decoder latency, and the number of rewrite operations. The key falsifiable signal is improved accuracy under memory faults at comparable storage cost, with a warning that worst-case normalization latency grows linearly with codeword width.
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.