Intelligence Inertia: Physical Isomorphism and Applications
Organizations: OpenImmortal Technology Co., Ltd. Beijing 101100, China
Abstract
Classical frameworks like Fisher Information approximate the cost of neural adaptation only in low-density regimes, failing to explain the explosive computational overhead incurred during deep structural reconfiguration. To address this, we introduce Intelligence Inertia, a property derived from the fundamental non-commutativity between rules and states (). Rather than claiming a new fundamental physical law, we establish a heuristic mathematical isomorphism between deep learning dynamics and Minkowski spacetime. Acting as an effective theory for high-dimensional tensor evolution, we derive a non-linear cost formula mirroring the Lorentz factor, predicting a relativistic -shaped inflation curve -- a computational wall where classical approximations fail. We validate this framework via three experiments: (1) adjudicating the -curve divergence under high-entropy noise, (2) mapping the optimal geodesic for architecture evolution, and (3) deploying an inertia-aware scheduler wrapper that prevents catastrophic forgetting. Adopting this isomorphism yields an exact quantitative metric for structural resistance, advancing the stability and efficiency of intelligent agents.
Figures & tables
| Dynamical Model | Reference Frame Treatment | Fit Error (RMSE) | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classical FIM | Absolute Coordinates | 36.0 | Failed : Incapable of capturing the non-linear “J-Curve” divergence. |
| Classical FIM | Galilean Shift ( ) | 30.0 | Limited : Fits the low-speed regime but severely underestimates the wall effect. |
| Hybrid FIM | Lorentz Transformation | 25.5 | Suboptimal : Corrects for velocity addition but lacks mass expansion logic. |
| Relativistic Mass (Intelligence Inertia) | Universal Covariance | 18.5 – 19.6 | Optimal : Precisely fits the asymptotic divergence and exhibits frame independence. |
| Arch. Name | Rule Reconfig. ( Axis) | Ext. Gain ( Axis) | Vel. ( ) | Vel. Dev. | Reach. Limit ( ) | Work (TFLOPs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MLP (Origin) | Baseline (R0) | Baseline (S0) | 0.502 | 0.002 | 2.302 | 0.6 |
| BN | Normalized (R1) | Baseline (S0) | 0.522 | 0.022 | 1.389 | 68.7 |
| Res | Residual (R2) | Baseline (S0) | 0.818 | 0.318 | 1.322 | 117.0 |
| MLP-CNN | Baseline (R0) | Locality (S1) | 0.179 | 0.321 | 1.485 | 830.0 |
| MLP-MCNN | Baseline (R0) | Multi-scale (S2) | 0.194 | 0.306 | 1.339 | 3670.0 |
| BN-CNN | Normalized (R1) | Locality (S1) | 0.532 | 0.032 | 0.647 | 664.0 |
| Sched. | Cfg. | Loss@30 | Prog.@30 | Accel. | Reach. | Gain | Best Ep. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pure Inertia | Wrapper Only | 1.3392 | 94.31% | N/A | 1.2811 | N/A | 96 |
| Cosine Ann. | Base / Enh. | 1.419 / 1.395 | 82.2% / 83.7% | +1.74% | 1.229 / 1.218 | +0.87% | 98 / 97 |
| OneCycle | Base / Enh. | 1.462 / 1.441 | 79.1% / 80.1% | +1.46% | 1.240 / 1.227 | +1.10% | 96 / 97 |
| Multi-Step | Base / Enh. | 1.431 / 1.396 | 82.6% / 85.5% | +2.45% | 1.247 / 1.242 | +0.40% | 91 / 92 |
| Cyclic LR | Base / Enh. | 1.431 / 1.396 | 84.3% / 87.4% | +2.46% | 1.268 / 1.265 | +0.21% | 99 / 99 |
| Polynomial | Base / Enh. | 1.396 / 1.381 | 83.9% / 84.9% | +1.08% | 1.222 / 1.217 | +0.43% | 96 / 98 |
| Group | Phase | Avg. Loss | Avg. Vel. | Avg. LR | Brake Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (Exponential) | Pre-Shock | 1.4878 | 0.6505 | 0.041532 | N/A |
| Clean Pulse | 1.4142 | 0.6723 | 0.009068 | 0.9x (None) | |
| Noise Pulse | 2.1845 | 0.6926 | 0.010367 | - | |
| Pure Inertia (Wrapper Only) | Pre-Shock | 1.4379 | 0.7525 | 0.015874 | N/A |
| Clean Pulse | 1.3541 | 0.8111 | 0.001659 | 1.2x ( Active ) | |
| Noise Pulse | 2.0841 | 0.8634 | 0.001420 | - |
| Metric | Exponential | Wrapper | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-trans. Loss | 0.9253 | 0.8879 | - |
| Old Task Final Loss | 9.1505 | 7.8801 | 13.88% Forgetting Reduction |
| Retention Deficit ( ) | 8.2626 | 6.9922 | 15.38% Rule Retention |
| Full Task Final Loss | 4.9093 | 4.3232 | 11.94% Comprehensive Synergy |
| Inst. Breaking Ratio | 1.08x | 2.92x | Autonomous Braking |
Neural Network Training Dynamics
Neural network training dynamics studies how parameters and representations change during optimization and how those changes shape learning, stability, and generalization.
See all 511 papers