Topics — What a work is about. Nucleation holds whatever reading the owner files here, whether or not an Anthology of the SOTA topic could also hold it; instruction for ML practice belongs to the anthology (ADR-048). The words are seeded from the clusters the reading-time triage of 2026-09-25 found, and grow by decision.
Natural sciences — physics, astronomy, planetary and earth science, chemistry, biology and medicine read outside any machine-learning claim.
18 of 371 QUESTION documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| QUESTION-060 v2 | When a network is trained on data from a structured system, are the variables it comes to represent fixed by its training objective or by what its architecture can represent cheaply, and since an architecture that can represent the system’s coarse-graining need not learn it, when do they coincide with the system’s own relevant variables? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-152 and QUESTION-025. THEORY-197 and THEORY-206 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-063 v4 | When a collective outcome such as synchrony, or the fall of a regulated quantity, can come from a shared external drive, from coupling among the members or from different internal routes, what measurement or intervention tells which architecture produced it, given that directional information measures under a recorded one-sided drive need not follow the coupling? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on QUESTION-035, QUESTION-033, CLAIM-172, CLAIM-167 and CLAIM-158. THEORY-129 and THEORY-130 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-065 | Can the target that a sufficiency-based boundary is relative to be supplied by the system’s own locality, as informativeness about its far environment across a buffer, so that the coarse variables kept no longer depend on the analyst, and is the partition that wins for a given target unique? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-152, CLAIM-154, CLAIM-157, CLAIM-164 and QUESTION-035. THEORY-198, THEORY-205 and THEORY-157 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-153 | Do the hyperbolic Betti-curve matches in odour space and in CA1 separate a hyperbolic metric from a flat sphere or a flat multiscale code, and do they replicate on other data? | The former promote_when clauses of THEORY-191 and THEORY-192, moved here unchanged when both were narrowed to what was measured and promoted under ADR-047 v3. Each Betti-curve test rejected only uniform Euclidean cubes. On a thin shell, hyperbolic distance is nearly a monotone function of angle, and uniform hyperbolic sampling is nearly an exponential spread of scales, so flat rivals remain. Neither study has been repeated on other data or by another group. | Open |
| QUESTION-154 | Does a block coarse-graining that maximizes the information its coarse variables keep about the far environment, but falls short of full capture with their number and type fixed, keep the renormalized Hamiltonian’s longer-range couplings bounded by the information lost, in two or more dimensions? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-198, moved here unchanged when THEORY-198 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-19. The perfect case is proved: full capture makes the coarse measure factorize across the block. The maximizers actually found fall short of full capture, and for them the link to a short-ranged Hamiltonian is shown only on 1D chains. | Open |
| QUESTION-172 | Does a transient change to one regulator, released with the environment held fixed, leave a bacterium’s other genes in a changed expression state for many generations once slow return is excluded? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-178, moved here when THEORY-178 was narrowed to the Boolean model ensemble it was shown in and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3). LIT-854 predicts lasting expression changes after a transient single-gene perturbation of E. coli’s regulatory core, but no such perturbation has been done in cells. Filed under the nucleating-argument line because CLAIM-184, the claim that grounds on THEORY-178, reads it as evidence about what a lasting state needs. | Open |
| QUESTION-185 | When does the information bottleneck’s first global transition between a lattice block and its far environment coincide with the point where the uninformative encoder loses stability, and is the first feature the leading excited transfer-matrix mode beyond the Ising check? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-205, widened. THEORY-205 was narrowed to the point where the uninformative IB encoder loses stability, β = (λ0/λ1)^(2L_B), and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v2). The global threshold, where the uninformative encoder stops being optimal, is 1/s*. It can come earlier, as it does on a skewed 3-state chain. In the circumference-3 Ising check the two agree. | Open |
| QUESTION-186 | In a second system with a known reciprocal coupling and one unit driven at graded strengths, does the measured transfer-entropy asymmetry grow to one-way flow under strong drive while the coupling stays symmetric? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-275, moved here when THEORY-275 was narrowed to the one bead system of LIT-947 and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3). In that system the one-way regime under strong drive is a simulation of the fitted model, not a measurement. | Open |
| QUESTION-205 | Inside Kadanoff’s kernel families, where each hidden spin couples to a block through a kernel of fixed form, does the exact trace condition force the coarse Hamiltonian to keep the relevant operators, or does some further stated condition still have to choose them? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-202. THEORY-202 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2): over general Boltzmann machines, neither a matched partition function nor Kadanoff’s exact trace condition fixes which variables a coarse-graining keeps. Its second counterexample needs visible–visible couplings, so it lies outside Kadanoff’s kernel families. Whether the trace condition suffices inside those families is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-222 v4 | Beyond the scalar linear Gaussian case and the deterministic case of a fast, contracting eliminated variable, when a coarse variable’s reduced dynamics carry memory of the eliminated variables, does it admit a finite-dimensional Markovian augmentation whose prediction error is bounded in terms of the eliminated dynamics, and is a level whose history, not its present state, does the predicting still a level? | A3 and A5 of the exchange of 2026-10-19 on coarse-to-fine processes, A5’s candidate Q3. The Mori–Zwanzig decomposition writes any projected dynamics as a Markovian term, a memory term and noise. The record holds no reading of it. Its criteria of closure (THEORY-257) condition on the coarse variable’s own history, so memory is not by itself a failure of them, and CLAIM-327 already locates a collective in a variable members read from the past. | Open |
| QUESTION-232 | Does the coarse-graining that maximizes mutual information with the system beyond a buffer find the renormalization-group variables of a system where they were not known beforehand, and does it give short-ranged effective Hamiltonians in two or more dimensions? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-194, moved here when THEORY-194 was narrowed to what Koch-Janusz and Ringel measured on the 2D Ising and dimer models and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3). Every 2D case in that study had a known answer, and the link to a short-ranged effective Hamiltonian is proved only for 1D and quasi-1D chains. | Open |
| QUESTION-263 | In two optically trapped beads with a symmetric hydrodynamic coupling and a recorded noise drive on one trap, do directional information measures between the beads follow the symmetry of the coupling? | The negative part of QUESTION-063, split off under ADR-049 at the owner’s request in the exchange of 2026-10-23, “Framework Overview Request”, and answered by THEORY-275. No: in the one system LIT-947 studied, time-delayed mutual information and transfer entropy follow the path of the recorded drive, not the symmetry of the coupling. Whether any measurement or intervention tells shared drive from coupling, and what happens under an unrecorded drive shared by both units, stay with QUESTION-063. | Answered |
| QUESTION-281 | By which dynamical transitions do the distinctions individuation needs come into being and pass away (instability that amplifies small differences, nucleation across a finite barrier from a locally stable state, bifurcation of the set of attractors, noise- or rate-induced tipping), and are a form’s creation, its stabilization and its coming to have a constitutive role three separate achievements? | The owner’s U14 of the exchange of 2026-10-27: “does this elucidate other work we should account for? maybe in the neighborhood of dynamics? bifurcation/catastrophe theory? far from equilibrium dynamics? pattern formation?” A14 found the record well stocked on Turing, Prigogine and Cross–Hohenberg and named the gap as what comes after an instability. It ended on “the mechanisms that create a form, the mechanisms that stabilize it, and the mechanisms through which it acquires a constitutive or autonomous role. Those may turn out to be three different achievements.” The record’s individuation claims say when a form is one system and how long it lasts (QUESTION-035); none says how it begins or ends. An answer names, for a stated system, the transition that made the form and the one that would unmake it. | Open |
| QUESTION-287 | In a deterministic singularly perturbed system whose eliminated variable is fast and contracting and whose reduced system is contracting, does the memoryless quasi-steady-state reduction predict the coarse variable with an error bounded uniformly in time in terms of the eliminated dynamics? | The fast contracting case of QUESTION-222, split off by the status review of 2026-10-27 under ADR-049, because THEORY-773 (Active) settles it. No memory coordinate is needed: the reduction on the slow manifold stays within O(ε) of the true slow trajectory for all t ≥ 0, with every constant explicit, set by the fast contraction rate λ_z, the reduced contraction rate λ_x and the manifold’s drift. | Answered |
| QUESTION-294 | When a network’s architecture can represent a structured system’s renormalization step exactly, must training by distribution fitting make the variables it represents the system’s relevant ones? | The representability part of QUESTION-060, split off by the status review of 2026-10-27 under ADR-049, because THEORY-197 (Active) settles it, in the negative. Mehta and Schwab’s RBM–renormalization correspondence is an identity of parametrizations, and an exact RG step is a perfect fit of the data distribution. Away from that point a contrastive-divergence RBM spends its hidden units on noise, not on the relevant fields. The architecture’s match does not fix what training keeps. | Answered |
| QUESTION-297 | When the effects of trauma reach descendants who did not live through it, by which route do they travel: germline epigenetics, the womb, parenting, or a group’s narrative and identity; and on the identity route, does an ancestor’s injury become part of the descendant’s self? | The owner’s question of 2026-10-29, beside the legacy line: the past acting on later generations, where legacy is the living acting for them. Claims of epigenetic transmission of trauma rest on animal work (Dias and Ressler) and small human studies (Yehuda et al.), against a sceptical consensus that mammalian germline reprogramming blocks it. Meta-analyses find little general second- or third-generation harm among Holocaust survivors’ descendants. On the cultural route, a group’s past injury becomes part of its identity (chosen trauma, cultural trauma), which is the owner’s extended self running backward in time. | Open |
| QUESTION-341 | On two-scale Lorenz 96 at ε = 0.5, K = 18, J = 20, F = 10, h_x = −1, h_y = 1, does a NARMAX discrepancy closure whose structure is chosen by a rule fixed before scoring still match the full system’s x₁ statistics (Kolmogorov–Smirnov distance) and beat a polynomial-plus-AR(1) closure on lead time at anomaly correlation 0.6, at δ = 0.05? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-818, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. Chorin and Lu chose the closure’s orders by trial and error against statistics they then report; whether the result survives a selection rule fixed in advance and an independent rerun is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-358 | Does an independent computation of the linearized plane Couette and Poiseuille operators in the energy norm reproduce transient growth of order R, resonance of order R² and a minimal destabilizing perturbation of order R⁻², with leading constants near those of Trefethen et al.’s Table 1? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-304, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. The lower bounds are CLAIM-383’s derivation; the upper orders and the constants rest on one computation (LIT-932, read in NOTE-839). Reddy & Henningson (1993) and Schmid & Henningson’s monograph are the obvious independent sources, unread. | Open |