Coarsening-Aware Global-Consensus Scheduler
Implementation & benchmark of arXiv:2607.09411 — Finite-time cooling and accessibility of the stripe phase in the Ising antiferromagnet
Source paper: Finite-time cooling and accessibility of the stripe phase in the Ising antiferromagnet arXiv:2607.09411 ⓘ · analyzed Aug 30, 2026
AI-generated research hypothesis, automatically tested. Not peer-reviewed.
Idea description
Modify learning-rate or annealing schedules so that local improvement is not mistaken for convergence when different parameter blocks occupy incompatible global modes. Measure a local-consistency score and a global-coherence score separately; slow training whenever local consistency is high but global coherence remains low, allowing competing parameter domains to merge before cooling further.
Formulas
Mathematical statement
The source model is an Ising Hamiltonian $H=J_1\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}s_i s_j+J_2\sum_{\langle\langle i,j\rangle\rangle}s_i s_j$, where $s_i\in\{-1,+1\}$, $J_1>0$ is the nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic coupling, and $J_2>0$ selects stripe order. Let $P_{\mathrm{stripe}}(n,L)$ be the probability of a globally stripe-ordered final state after $n$ local-update sweeps on a system of linear size $L$. The kinetic time $n^*$ is defined by $P_{\mathrm{stripe}}(n^*,L)=p_0$ for a fixed threshold $p_0$, and the paper reports effective coarsening compatible with $n^*(L)\propto L^z$ with $z\gtrsim2$ over the simulated range. For a neural network partitioned into blocks $b=1,\ldots,B$, define local consistency $Q_t=B^{-1}\sum_b q_b(t)$, where $q_b$ is the mean cosine similarity of neighboring parameter-update vectors inside block $b$, and define global coherence $C_t=\lambda_1(G_t)/\operatorname{tr}(G_t)$, where $G_t=B^{-1}\sum_b(u_b-\bar u)(u_b-\bar u)^\top$ is the covariance of normalized block update directions $u_b$, and $\lambda_1$ is its largest eigenvalue. The adapted controller slows the schedule when $Q_t$ is high but $C_t$ is low: local consistency has been restored, but competing global update sectors remain.
Implementation notes
1. Integration point: partition a small MLP, CNN, or transformer into blocks such as layers, attention heads, convolutional channels, or parameter shards. Every $K$ optimizer steps, collect the recent update vector $\Delta\theta_b$ for each block and normalize it to $u_b$. Define the block adjacency graph $E_b$ using neighboring layers, adjacent channels, or attention heads in the same layer. 2. Pseudocode: initialize learning rate $\eta$ and target global coherence $C_0$. At each diagnostic interval, compute pairwise cosine similarities on adjacent update vectors to obtain $Q_t$; compute the covariance $G_t$ of block-level directions and its leading-eigenvalue ratio $C_t$ using a low-rank eigensolver; if $Q_t>q_0$ and $C_t<C_0$, set $\eta\leftarrow\eta\exp[-\kappa(1-Q_t)(C_0-C_t)]$ and optionally increase the number of steps before the next decay; otherwise apply the baseline cosine or exponential schedule. 3. Computed versus estimated: $Q_t$, $C_t$, and $G_t$ are empirical estimates, while the paper supplies the mechanism and the prediction that global ordering requires a coarsening time scaling as a power of system size, with exponent at least approximately two in its measured regime. Estimate an effective exponent $\hat z$ by repeating runs with different block counts $B$ and fitting the time to reach $C_0$ as $T_{\mathrm{coal}}(B)\propto B^{\hat z}$. 4. First cheap experiment: train a 3-layer MLP and a 6-layer small transformer on MNIST or CIFAR-10 using SGD or Adam, comparing the baseline schedule against this controller at equal update count. Log training loss, validation accuracy, $Q_t$, $C_t$, and gradient/update disagreement. The falsifiable signature is a plateau with high $Q_t$ but low $C_t$ under the baseline, followed by a measurable increase in $C_t$ after the controller slows learning. Across block counts, the predicted consensus time should follow a power law with $\hat z$ near or above $2$; if no such scaling or delayed-coherence regime appears, reject the transfer.
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 the coarsening-aware scheduler with empirical Q/C diagnostics, gated learning-rate slowdown, formula sanity checks, and a paired fixed-seed MLP experiment. The constructed orthogonal-sector case produced high Q≈1 and low C≈0.334 and triggered the controller, verifying the gate mathematically, but the slowdown was only about 2.4e-6 in that setup. On two-moons, baseline and controller were identical because the observed high-Q/low-C regime never occurred; both reached 96.11% accuracy and validation loss 0.1061, so no promised training win was observed.
- Agent confidence
- 9/10
- Baseline
- final accuracy 0.961111, validation loss 0.106121, mean Q -0.02443, mean C 0.35659, high-Q/low-C fraction 0.0, minimum LR 0.0018
- Idea
- final accuracy 0.961111, validation loss 0.106121, mean Q -0.02443, mean C 0.35659, high-Q/low-C fraction 0.0, minimum LR 0.0018; synthetic check Q 0.999997, C 0.333641, eta ratio 0.9999976
Limitations: Only a small two-moons MLP was tested, not MNIST/CIFAR, CNNs, transformers, longer coarsening dynamics, multiple seeds, or block-count scaling. The empirical block-update projection and adjacency construction are lightweight approximations rather than a production optimizer integration.
How to run: python3 experiment.py
Verdict computed by deterministic test code from paired-seed statistics — not by the language model.
Artifacts
- experiment.py 6.7 KB View Raw
- report.md 1.5 KB View
- results.json 13.2 KB View Raw