Experiments, Status, and Next Steps
Infrastructure
All experiments run on CortenForge's simulation stack:
| Component | Module |
|---|---|
| Langevin dynamics | sim-core (Euler integrator) |
| Thermodynamic circuit environments | sim-therm-env (ThermCircuitEnv builder) |
| Passive energy landscapes | sim-thermostat (PassiveComponent trait) |
| RL algorithms | sim-rl (CEM, REINFORCE, PPO, TD3, SAC) |
| Gradient-free optimization | sim-opt (SA, Richer-SA, PT) |
Completed Validations
| Principle | Regime | Result | Design Rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Noise Tuning (P2) | E. coli | Validated | kT ≈ 2.3 for J < 1.5, kT ≈ 4.3 for J ≥ 2.0. ΔV/kT < 3.0 (trapping cutoff). |
| Injection Timing (P4) | Ctenophore | Validated | δ ≈ π/5 for J < 2 (18–37% improvement). Synchronized for J ≥ 2. |
| Scale-Invariance (P6) | Octopus | Validated | kT ≈ 2.8 holds at N=4–64 without retuning. Approximately extensive (no superlinear improvement). |
| Topological Encoding (P1) | E. coli | Failed | Amplitude dominates in Langevin domain. Use freely. |
| Deliberate Instability (P11) | Peregrine | Failed | No sharp bifurcation. ΔV axis is forgiving. |
The Boundary
What transfers: Statistical-mechanical questions — noise tuning, phase coordination, extensivity. The Langevin framework speaks this language natively.
What doesn't: Dynamical-systems questions — topological invariants (requires time-reversibility), bifurcation sensitivity (requires sharp phase transitions at finite N). The model doesn't have the vocabulary.
Remaining Langevin-Ready Principles
These could be tested with the existing ThermCircuitEnv infrastructure:
| Principle | Regime | Experiment | Effort |
|---|---|---|---|
| P7 — Predictive forward model | Dragonfly | PN guidance in Langevin noise | Medium |
| P9 — Minimum observables | Dragonfly | Observation ablation study | Medium |
| P5 — Compressed command | Octopus | Single ctrl for heterogeneous circuit | Medium |
| P8 — Pre-selection | Dragonfly | Regime gate check | Small |
Principles Needing Different Physics
| Principle | Regime | What's needed |
|---|---|---|
| P3 — Multimodal switching | Ctenophore | Asymmetric power/recovery strokes need drag model |
| P10 — Paired perturbation structures | Peregrine | Spatial vortex physics |
| P12 — Logarithmic spiral approach | Peregrine | 2D/3D flow field (CFD) |
Next Experiments
Four follow-on experiments that deepen the validated results, ordered by impact:
1. N-Scaling Law — COMPLETED
Result: No scaling law. Peak synchrony is flat (~0.058–0.071) across N = 4–64 with no significant trend (α = -0.037, |t| = 1.38). The preliminary increase from the 3-size sweep was a discretization artifact. The system is approximately extensive — design rules hold without retuning across a 16× scale range, but fidelity does not improve for free. Peak kT is stable (mean 2.75, 17.6% drift). Closes open question 6.
Code: ising_scale_law_sweep in ising_chain.rs. Runtime: 7.5 hours.
2. Coupling Crossover Mapping
The Noise Tuning rule showed two regimes: weak coupling (J < 1.5, peak kT ≈ 2.3) and strong coupling (J ≥ 2.0, peak kT ≈ 4.3). Where exactly is the crossover? Is it smooth or sharp?
Experiment: Sweep J = 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2.0 with 25 kT points, 40 episodes each. ~3 hours.
Gate: If the crossover occupies less than ΔJ = 0.25, it's sharp — potentially a phase transition in the coupled system.
3. Optimal (J, δ) Surface
A finer mesh would map the full optimal phase-lag surface: 8 J values × 30 δ values × 80 episodes. ~6 hours.
4. Effective Barrier Model Validation — COMPLETED
Merged into experiment 1 as Gate 3. Result: the effective-barrier model (R² = 0.29) does not fit — peak kT bounces without systematic drift, indicating the SR peak is broad enough that the exact optimum is noise-dominated rather than barrier-determined.