This analysis demonstrates channel attribution and characterizes DegEq in a Riemannian language model, suggesting crucial implications for model stability.
HyDRA v4: Hyperbolic Distillation with Riemannian Adaptation— Channel Attribution and Proof by Elimination HyDRA is a compact autoregressive language model (≈12M parameters) thatoperates natively on the Lorentz hyperboloid H¹²⁸ and is trained viaknowledge distillation from a frozen GPT-2-small teacher (117M parameters).Every layer — attention, feed-forward, and residual connections — preservesthe Riemannian manifold constraint to float64 precision. Training onWikiText-2 achieves a best validation perplexity of 282.0 (Variant F,44,000 steps), with Minkowski constraint violations below 10⁻⁶ throughout. ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────MAIN FINDING: Channel 2 (LM Head) is the Dominant Cause of DegEq───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We identify, characterise, and causally attribute Degenerate Equilibrium(DegEq): a stable fixed point of KL-based hyperbolic distillation in whichangular alignment stabilises while radial dynamics remain active, yielding ageometrically valid but semantically degraded configuration. Five from-scratch experiments spanning the complete space of loss-sideinterventions — standard KL (Variant F), Projective KL (D1), DecoupledRadial-Angular (D3), Origin-Tangent Euclidean Distillation (OTED), and OTEDwith radial anchor (V5-D) — all converge to the same fixed point (rdc* ≈ 10,relative deviation <5%). This constitutes a proof by exhaustion that noloss-side intervention prevents DegEq. A complete 2×2 channel-isolation matrix (V5) then surgically attributes theattractor to its architectural source: V5-D (no fix): rdc* = 10.74 — DegEq baseline V5-B (Ch2 fix only): rdc* = 0.96 — 91% reduction ★ V5-A (Ch1 fix only): RadiusCollapse — Ch1 alone is unstable V5-C (both channels): NaN explosion — numerical instability V5-B activates only AngularLMHead (Channel 2 fix), leaving the optimizerunchanged. The result is a 91% reduction in rdc*, establishing Channel 2— the LM head radial gradient ∂logit/∂r = cosh(r) ≠ 0 — as the dominantand sufficient cause of DegEq. Channel 2 alone is necessary and sufficientto eliminate the attractor. ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────MECHANISTIC EXPLANATION───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Two independent radial channels drive DegEq: Channel 1 (optimizer): First-order parallel transport of AdamW momentumaccumulates a radially biased approximation error ε_t ∝ x_t via theChristoffel symbol Γʳ_θθ = −sinh(r)cosh(r). Delays DegEq onset but cannotneutralise the attractor. When applied without Channel 2, triggersRadiusCollapse — a distinct pathology distinct from DegEq. Channel 2 (LM head): The vocabulary projection computes∂logit_k/∂r = cosh(r_h) ≠ 0, injecting radial gradient that bypasses anyloss-side or optimizer-side intervention. This is the dominant channel:zeroing it via AngularLMHead eliminates 91% of the attractor value. Additionally, the Krioukov (2010) curvature–Zipf equilibrium predictsK* = 1/(4(γ−1)²) = 66.4 for WikiText-2 (γ ≈ 1.06), versus the model'sfixed K = 1 — a mismatch of 65.4 units that may explain the specificattractor value rdc* ≈ 10 as a thermodynamic equilibrium between manifoldcurvature and corpus statistics. ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────STRUCTURAL CONTRIBUTIONS───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (1) Radial Drift Coefficient (RDC). Real-time diagnostic proxy RDC = σ_logit / (L_hidden + ε), EMA β = 0.95, with Lyapunov potential L_q = ½·rdc². Predicts DegEq onset 500–1,000 steps in advance. (2) Riemannian Natural Gradient Correction. r/sinh(r) scaling of AdamW updates on manifold parameters (Amari, 1998). Delays DegEq onset from step ≈5,400 to beyond step 33,400 in the extended Variant F run. (3) AngularLMHead. Cosine-similarity vocabulary head with ∂logit/∂r = 0 exact. Eliminates Channel 2 — the dominant DegEq source. V5-B result: rdc* 10.74 → 0.96 (91% reduction). (4) EarlyStoppingV3. Dual-EMA stopping (fast β = 0.3, slow β = 0.9) with detrended noise estimation. Eliminates false positives on true loss plateaus where single-reference EMA fires spuriously. (5) Origin-Tangent Euclidean Distillation (OTED). All objectives computed in T_o H^n ≅ ℝⁿ, eliminating Christoffel symbols from the backward pass entirely. Reaches rdc* = 10.67 — confirming loss geometry is not the causal channel. (6) cgt.diagnostics. Post-training DegEq analysis module: Krioukov K* equilibrium (k_equilibrium_from_zipf), Khrulkov frequency–radius correlation (freq_radius_correlation), and DegEqDiagnostics unified report. Purely additive — no training code modified. ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────GEOMETRIC–LINGUISTIC DECOUPLING (Negative Result)───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Geometric fidelity is neither sufficient nor predictive of linguisticcompetence. Despite 9/10 geometry tests passing and Minkowski violationsbelow 10⁻⁶ throughout 44,000 steps, generated text remains incoherent.Good geometry is cheap — enforcing Riemannian correctness underarchitectural constraints requires no special effort — but does not implymeaningful representation learning. ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────LIMITATIONS───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Single-seed results (SEED=42). DegEq characterisation is empirical andrestricted to the tested architecture (4L×128d) and dataset (WikiText-2).V5-C (Ch1+Ch2) suffered NaN explosion at step 13 — a numerical instabilityin the Ch1+Ch2+OTED interaction, distinct from DegEq and unresolved.The Krioukov K* prediction (learnable K shifting rdc* to a data-dependentfixed point) remains falsifiable but untested. Code: https://github.com/gokuhayda/MyShowCase/tree/main/hyperbolic-intelligenceLicense: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ERIC GUSTAVO REIS DE SENA (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: