Characteristic-Region Gain Controller
Implementation & benchmark of arXiv:2607.15833 — Maps of q-deformed fractional order: From circle to cardioid via crescent
Source paper: Maps of q-deformed fractional order: From circle to cardioid via crescent arXiv:2607.15833 ⓘ · analyzed Aug 30, 2026
AI-generated research hypothesis, automatically tested. Not peer-reviewed.
Idea description
Use the q-fractional characteristic equation as an online trust-region controller for recurrent gain or residual-memory strength. Instead of allowing the recurrent Jacobian to cross the unit-circle boundary, estimate the dominant characteristic root and rescale the feedback gain whenever it approaches modulus one.
Formulas
Mathematical statement
For the linearized layer x_{t+1}=Ax_t+Cu_t with fractional memory u_t=sum from k=0 to infinity of w_k x_{t-k}, the characteristic function is F_g(z)=det[zI-A-gC W_{q,alpha}(z)], where g is a scalar feedback gain. The stability boundary is F_g(exp(i theta))=0 for some theta in [0,2pi), and stability requires the largest characteristic-root modulus rho(g) to be less than one. Estimate rho(g) from a K-delay state augmentation. A conservative controller maintains a margin delta>0 by setting g_new=g min(1,(1-delta)/(rho_hat+epsilon)), where rho_hat is the estimated dominant root modulus and epsilon prevents division by zero. This transfers the paper's complex stability geometry into an implementable recurrent-gain constraint.
Implementation notes
Attach the controller to the recurrent feedback matrix C, the residual coefficient gamma, or a scalar gain multiplying the memory branch. Every N training steps, freeze the current A,C,q,alpha, form the K-delay augmented Jacobian corresponding to the recurrence, and use an eigensolver or 10-20 power iterations to estimate the dominant modulus rho_hat. If rho_hat exceeds 1-delta, rescale C or gamma according to the displayed controller; if it is far below the target margin, permit a slow increase using g_new=min(g_max,g*(1+eta_gain)). A more accurate but slower alternative evaluates W_q(exp(i theta)) on a frequency grid and performs bisection over g to locate the first unit-circle intersection. The q-kernel and characteristic equation come from the paper; K, delta, N, gain caps, and the root estimator are empirical approximations. The first cheap test should use tanh RNNs on sequential MNIST and Copy-Memory, comparing SGD, gradient clipping, spectral normalization, and this controller at matched initial gains. Record loss, gradient norm, gain, and rho_hat. The falsifiable prediction is a sharp degradation or exploding-gradient transition near rho_hat=1. Runs maintained at rho_hat<=1-delta should show geometric gradient decay with fitted slope close to log(rho_hat), while unconstrained runs should diverge after crossing one. A gain sweep should yield an observed stable/unstable threshold within approximately 20% of the characteristic-root prediction, and q<1 should make this threshold less sensitive to memory truncation K than q=1.
Verification
Stage 1 · Toy mechanism gate: Passed ✓
Stage 2 · Mechanism transferred to benchmark: Not reproduced ✗
Stage 2 · Practical benchmark result: Inconclusive
Methodology: 8 paired seeds, permutation test (p<0.05) against a learning-rate-tuned baseline. How verification works
Stage 1 — Mechanism check agent confidence 8/10
Built a finite-delay fractional-memory companion-matrix implementation with q-binomial weights, dominant-root estimation, and the proposed conservative gain controller. The mechanism manifested: the predicted boundary g*=1/sum(w)=0.09021 matched the swept transition 0.09021, rho crossed one between 0.9g* and 1.1g*, and measured gradient log-slope differed from log(rho) by 3.1e-5. Starting 35% above the boundary, control reduced rho from 1.0232 to 0.9533 and reduced final squared state norm from 4.39 uncontrolled to 8.37e-4 controlled.
- Agent confidence
- 8/10
- Baseline
- Uncontrolled g=1.35*gcrit: rho initially 1.02315; final squared state norm after 80 steps = 4.3898.
- Idea
- Controller reduced g from 0.12178 to 0.04179 over 50 updates; final rho=0.95326 versus target 0.95; final squared state norm = 0.0008369. Boundary prediction 0.09021087093 versus observed 0.09021087093; stable gradient slope -0.015205 versus predicted log(rho) -0.015174.
Limitations: Only a scalar positive-feedback finite K=30 toy system was tested, not a trained tanh RNN, sequential MNIST, Copy-Memory, SGD, gradient clipping, or spectral normalization. The q-fractional infinite-memory characteristic equation was approximated by a truncated companion matrix; noisy or delayed root estimation was not evaluated.
How to run: python3 experiment.py
Stage 2 — Benchmark vs. tuned baseline (arXiv:2607.15833)
Ahead of the baseline (−28.2%) but not statistically significant (p=0.1834, wins 6 / 8 paired seeds).
- Benchmark
- Dynamics forecasting
- Model
- rnn_small
- Paired seeds
- 8
- Baseline mean
- 0.0015
- Idea mean
- 0.0011
- Effect (Δ)
- -0.0004 (−28.2%; negative = idea better)
- Wins
- 6 / 8 paired seeds
- p-value
- 0.1834 (permutation test, 20 000 shuffles)
- Smallest detectable effect
- ±45.8%
- Mechanism
- Not confirmed ✗
- Practical effect
- Inconclusive
- Baseline tuning
- swept over 6 configs
Only the built-in dynamics track was tested; no sequence, tabular, or vision transfer was evaluated. The finite-delay fractional-memory characteristic equation was approximated here by a GRU recurrent-weight block spectral-radius proxy rather than an exact fractional-memory augmentation. The local Jacobian signature was measured on four trained models and did not confirm the predicted quantitative correspondence. Training used 12 epochs and 400/100 samples per seed rather than larger-scale or longer-horizon evaluation.
How to run: python3 bench_run.py
Verdict computed by deterministic test code from paired-seed statistics — not by the language model.
Stage 2 — Benchmark latest Failed ✗
Agent confidence: 9/10
Built the Characteristic-Region Gain Controller as a local training-loop intervention on the bench dynamics track using the shared rnn_small GRU. The idea achieved lower mean test MSE than the tuned baseline (0.0010705 vs 0.0014901; delta -0.0004197; 6/8 wins), but the paired permutation p-value was 0.1834, so the required significant-win criterion was not met. The model-derived feedback-radius versus local hidden-Jacobian signature had a 70.9% relative gap and was not confirmed.
- Baseline
- Tuned Adam with lr=0.006 and gradient clipping=1.0: mean dynamics test MSE 0.0014901440, std 0.0004653271, 8 paired seeds.
- Idea
- Characteristic-region controller with lr=0.006 and delta=0.10: mean dynamics test MSE 0.0010704752, std 0.0004834065, 8 paired seeds; paired delta -0.0004196688; 6/8 wins; permutation p=0.1834; verdict=no significant win.
Benchmark result
Ahead of the baseline (−28.2%) but not statistically significant (p=0.1834, wins 6 / 8 paired seeds).
- Benchmark
- Dynamics forecasting
- Model
- rnn_small
- Paired seeds
- 8
- Baseline mean
- 0.0015
- Idea mean
- 0.0011
- Effect (Δ)
- -0.0004 (−28.2%; negative = idea better)
- Wins
- 6 / 8 paired seeds
- p-value
- 0.1834 (permutation test, 20 000 shuffles)
- Smallest detectable effect
- ±45.8%
- Mechanism
- Not confirmed ✗
- Practical effect
- Inconclusive
- Baseline tuning
- swept over 6 configs
Only the built-in dynamics track was tested; no sequence, tabular, or vision transfer was evaluated. The finite-delay fractional-memory characteristic equation was approximated here by a GRU recurrent-weight block spectral-radius proxy rather than an exact fractional-memory augmentation. The local Jacobian signature was measured on four trained models and did not confirm the predicted quantitative correspondence. Training used 12 epochs and 400/100 samples per seed rather than larger-scale or longer-horizon evaluation.
How to run: python3 bench_run.py
Artifacts
- bench_report.json 3.8 KB View Raw
- bench_run.py 6.3 KB View Raw
- experiment.py 5.7 KB View Raw
- report.md 1.5 KB View
- report_bench_2026-08-31T113007.md 4.4 KB View
- results.json 6.5 KB View Raw