Source-linked AI summary

Reference-Tail Trust:Certified Probability Floors for Learned Updates Inside a Deployed Network

Abdolvahab Khalili Sadaghiani, Jose Nunez-Yanez

arXiv:2609.34904v1cs.LGcs.AI

TL;DR

Deployed GNN updates can improve average performance while still regressing on particular inputs, leaving the safety of the served prediction unresolved. RTT admits learned internal updates through certified incumbent-tail bounds and a final checker. In the reported arxiv comparison, it gains 6.5×10^-3 nats per call versus 5.6×10^-3 for a matched one-pass corrector.

  • Problem

    Average improvement from network updates does not determine how much of an update can be admitted on a call while controlling the prediction actually delivered.

    Source: §1 · p. 1
  • Method

    RTT constrains learned internal displacements by worst-case loss bounds through the frozen network’s remaining layers and checks the executed trajectory before release.

    Source: §1 · p. 1
  • Results

    6.5×10^-3 nats per call is RTT’s reported arxiv gain, versus 5.6×10^-3 for a matched one-pass corrector.

    Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Takeaways & Limitations

    RTT separates deterministic protection of served predictions from statistical claims about gain and regression on fresh deployment episodes.

    Source: §1 · pp. 1–2

    Deployment labels are unavailable to the admission rule, and statistical claims concern a specified deployment generator.

    Source: §2.1 · p. 3

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Graph neural networks (GNNs) need to exploit improved message passing without surrendering control over predictions already trusted in deployment. We introduce Reference-Tail Trust (RTT), a framework that admits learned updates inside a frozen GNN and certifies the prediction actually served. RTT couples graph-based proposal states with a constrained internal optimizer: each displacement is charged for its worst-case terminal cross-entropy increase through the incumbent's remaining message-passing layers. A trajectory-validated tube and an independent checker enforce per-node probability floors, $p^{\mathrm{s}}_{ic} \ge e^{-H_{\mathrm{row}}} p^{\mathrm{r}}_{ic}$, and a call-level budget, $\sum_i w_i D_\infty(p^{\mathrm{r}}_i \| p^{\mathrm{s}}_i) \le H^+$, uniformly over labels. Calls whose adapted outputs pass certification require no separate full incumbent rollout; failed certificates trigger whole-call fallback. We derive the exact probability-floor frontier by water-filling, characterize architecture-constrained efficiency, and establish conditions under which internal propagation exploits evidence unavailable to restricted output correctors. In the reported ogbn-arxiv audit, RTT achieves $6.5\times 10^{-3}$ nats of mean gain per call, with a one-sided 95% regression-rate upper bound of 0.95% and a 95% negative-flip upper bound of 0.51% on the uninspected part of the reserved node population. Its mean gain is 61% of a cross-fitted posterior-based frontier estimate and exceeds the strongest matched one-pass corrector by $+0.9\times 10^{-3}$ nats. Reported experiments span eight proposals, six graph-incumbent families, structural and temporal graph shifts, and molecular prediction, with additional image and tabular evaluations. RTT makes GNN adaptation a budgeted, certifiable inference decision rather than an unconditional model replacement.

1 Introduction

RTT addresses how to admit learned changes inside a deployed, frozen network while protecting the predictions actually served. It separates deterministic prediction protection from statistical performance evaluation and compares internal admission with a matched output corrector.

1 Introduction

  • RTT separates a deterministic, label-uniform cross-entropy protection requirement from statistical evaluation of expected gain and regression rates on fresh deployment episodes.The protections include per-row probability floors and an aggregate call-level damage budget.Source: §1 · p. 1
  • A learned proposal supplies candidate internal displacements, while a constrained optimizer prices them through the incumbent’s remaining network and a checker releases or rejects the executed update.On persistent certification failure, the incumbent is served for the whole call.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
  • 6.5×10^-3 nats per call is RTT’s reported arxiv gain, versus 5.6×10^-3 for the matched corrector, at 1.42× versus 1.25× one-pass latency.The comparison is designed to test internal admission’s additional utility and cost under the same floor, labels, head capacity, and proposal features.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • RTT frames its contribution as individual-call admission of internal changes, distinct from prior work on compatible training, model upgrades, verification, graph propagation, and prediction or policy control.The introduction positions RTT as bringing these questions together at the decision point of admitting internal changes with protection attached to the served output.Source: §1 · p. 2

2 Reference-Tail Trust: Model and Certified Execution

RTT compares adapted and incumbent predictions on the same deployment call, with labels unavailable to the admission rule. It uses candidate state displacements and certified incumbent-tail bounds to decide whether to serve the adapted output or fall back for the whole call.

2.1 Deployment objective and the probability-floor contract

  • The deployment contract separates label-uniform row and call protections from statistical claims tied to a specified deployment generator.The adapted output is served only if certified; otherwise the incumbent output is served for the whole call, and a passing call needs no separate full incumbent rollout.Source: Table 1 · p. 3, §2.1 · p. 3

2.2 Candidate geometry and intervention placement

  • RTT places candidate displacements at selected internal depths, using native or frozen-adapter proposals, and constrains each step to a trimmed candidate hull.The zero displacement remains feasible, allowing the optimizer to retain the incumbent or accept a capped candidate combination.Source: §2.2 · p. 4
  • Physical displacement coordinates make the proposal representation invariant to duplicating or permuting candidates, or adding points inside the same post-trim hull.The stated invariance does not cover changes to the hull; nonlinear trimming must be accounted for before hulls are compared.Source: §2.2 · p. 4
  • TSA- and STEM-derived proposals use RTT’s external-proposal interface, while their full native outputs remain separate comparators rather than exact reproductions of exported-state variants.The experiments separately record utility lost through state export, depth mapping, and trimming before attributing improvement to admission.Source: §2.2 · p. 4

X Enc H0

RTT prices internal movements through validated incumbent-tail bounds, allocates a certified budget using learned utility estimates, and independently checks the executed trajectory before release. Failed certification leads to whole-call fallback.

2.3 Reference-tail contracts and one-sided pricing

  • Validated trajectory tubes enclose incumbent continuations from executed intervention segments, allowing bounds on terminal loss changes to price internal movements.Charges become more informative as the remaining tail shortens, with conservative norm-based contracts earlier and tighter envelope or exact charges near the output head.Source: §2.3 · pp. 5–6

2.4 Learning to allocate certified budget

  • Learned slope and uncertainty estimates guide a convex displacement choice under candidate-hull and remaining-budget constraints, while certified remainders bound nonlinear loss changes.The uncertainty term upper-bounds the unknown linear loss change on its coverage event; the curvature term bounds the nonlinear remainder.Source: §2.4 · p. 6

2.5 Independent certification and whole-call release

  • An independent checker recomputes trajectory bounds and verifies call-budget, row-floor, and descent predicates before release; persistent failure triggers whole-call fallback.Figure 1 distinguishes learned modules that determine utility from the certificate path that determines validity.Source: Figure 1 · p. 5, §2.5 · p. 7
  • Floating-point guarantees require enclosing numerical residuals, which the checker handles with directed rounding and charges against the budgets.A poor proposal or inaccurate utility head may reduce gain or induce fallback without invalidating a correctly implemented deterministic certificate.Source: §2.5 · p. 7

3 Analytical Guarantees and Statistical Assurance

The section separates deterministic guarantees for served predictions from possible gain under a probability floor and the statistical claims supported by calibration and audits.

3.1 Trajectory accounting and deterministic protection

  • On released calls, damage is −DT + PT − ST; under covered slopes and a valid remainder model, it is nonpositive with marginal probability at least 1−δcov for a fixed member.A data-selected member needs fresh post-selection calibration or simultaneous guarantees before that probability statement applies.Source: §3.1 · p. 8
  • Summed valid charges prove the call budget uniformly over labels, so accepted adapted calls need not evaluate the incumbent endpoint.The trajectory checker recomputes bounds on the executed path; a positive damage budget still permits a loss increase.Source: §3.1 · p. 8

3.2 Conditional gain and an analytical floor projection

  • Positive conditional gain requires deployment information to correct conditional incumbent error; when the incumbent matches the conditional label law, no O-measurable rule gains.The row-wise gain rate is bounded by (Ri − 1)S+ and is attainable to first order.Source: §3.2 · pp. 8–9
  • The probability-floor set admits an analytical active-set projection, and the output-space budget is allocated by water-filling until marginal gains equalize or rows saturate.The projection is not a new network; strict positivity of q is needed for a finite reverse-KL projection.Source: §3.2 · pp. 8–9, §3.3 · p. 9

3.3 The exact frontier and architecture-constrained efficiency

  • Under shared conditional label laws and budgets, the exact optima satisfy Uout ≥ Ureach ≥ Ucert ≥ URTT.Water-filling equalizes marginal gains across positive-weight unsaturated rows; computed diagnostics are not proved equalities or exact global gap decompositions.Source: §3.3 · p. 9
  • The branchwise comparison requires its stated conditioning and convexity assumptions; cross-fitted posterior frontier shares are plug-in diagnostics, not certified fractions of the unknown Bayes frontier.A comparison across the nonconvex union of window branches needs separate branch-selection accounting.Source: §3.3 · p. 10

3.4 When internal intervention helps, and how certificates compose

  • Internal intervention has no unrestricted superiority over floor-feasible output rules, but can exploit evidence unavailable to correctors restricted to incumbent states and k-hop proposal rows.The separation requires a transport path through the incumbent tail and T − ℓ − 1 ≥ dist_i; wider correctors or different information sets may match RTT.Source: §3.4 · p. 10

3.5 Sequential calibration and deployment-level assurance

  • Calibration coverage is marginal over calibration data and an exchangeable test episode, while a selected member needs simultaneous coverage or fresh calibration for the nominal pre-audit bound.A KL-robustness curve is conditional on deployment-law membership in the divergence ball; score-distribution divergence cannot establish that membership.Source: §3.5 · pp. 10–11

4 Experimental Results

The experiments compare RTT with matched output-space alternatives under a registered audit, then examine where gains arise, their deployment costs, and transfer across proposals and tasks. RTT gains more than the strongest matched one-pass corrector in the primary arxiv audit, while results across row groups and settings show that its advantage is not universal.

4.1 Protocol, baselines, and evaluation units

  • The main audit uses 2,048 final-audit mixture episodes, and the strongest one-pass corrector shares RTT's labels, head capacity, gradient-step count, and proposal features.The TSA/STEM extension uses a separate history-aware protocol and is not pooled with the earlier no-prefix audit; its reported comparison makes no significance claim.Source: §4 · p. 11, §4.1 · p. 11, §4.6 · p. 15

4.2 Primary comparison and the probability-floor frontier

  • 6.5 [6.3, 6.7] × 10^-3 nats mean gain for RTT, with a +0.9 [+0.8, +1.1] × 10^-3-nat paired lead over the strongest corrector.RTT's call-level regression-rate upper bound is 0.95%, and its negative-flip upper bound is 0.51% on the uninspected reserved-node population; the corrector is cheaper at 1.25× versus 1.42× incumbent latency.Source: §4.2 · pp. 11–12, Table 2 · p. 12
  • At a row floor of h = 0.45, the Bayes-posterior projection gains 0.256 nats, versus 0.187 for feasible raw-update mixing and 0.145 at the universal weight.Water-filling equalizes marginal gains across unsaturated rows; on the arxiv mixture RTT reaches 61% of the estimated output-space frontier, a cross-fitted posterior diagnostic rather than a guarantee.Source: Figure 2 · p. 12, §4.2 · p. 12

4.3 Where the gain comes from and what each mechanism contributes

  • On near-cancellation rows, RTT contributes 0.9 mixture-gain units versus at most 0.1 for the corrector; on beyond-two-hop rows, it contributes 2.2 versus 1.1.The corrector leads on remaining rows, 4.4 versus 3.4, supporting a regime-dependent rather than universal internal advantage; the near-cancellation condition is empirical, not the exact equality assumed by Proposition 2(b).Source: §4.3 · p. 12, Figure 3 · p. 13
  • On planted partitions with miscalibration γ = 0.3, RTT reaches 42% of the output-space frontier; on arxiv, estimated shares range from 50% on clean calls to 63% under real-cache shift.The reported numerical ordering suggests architecture restriction is the largest shortfall source, but does not establish a globally optimized additive decomposition; one-sided pricing changes gain from 3.92 to 6.50 at the same 0.05-nat budget.Source: §4.3 · pp. 12–13

4.4 Call size, reliability, and computational cost

  • For the registered member, the development-set regression-rate bound rises from 1.01% at 4,096 nodes to 7.36% at 64; reselection restores 1.98% with gain 4.6.At H+ = ζ, the call-level regression event is ruled out deterministically and RTT still gains 2.0; on the final audit, seven of 2,048 calls ultimately fall back, and native-proposal RTT costs 1.42× incumbent latency versus 2.18× for sequential rollouts.Source: §4.4 · p. 13, Figure 4 · p. 14

4.5 Proposal breadth, other tasks, and transfer

  • Across eight previously evaluated proposals, RTT exceeds the matched one-pass corrector by 0.5–0.9 × 10^-3 nats; graph configurations reach 60%–73% of estimated oracle frontier.The evaluation also covers temporal and structural graph shifts, molecular prediction, ImageNet-C, and Folktables; on ogbg-molpcba the reserved-scaffold result is 28.6 AP versus 27.7 for the deployed incumbent.Source: §4.5 · pp. 13–14, Table 3 · p. 14

4.6 Two recent conference methods: matched TSA/STEM evaluation

  • In the separate matched TSA/STEM comparison, RTT's paired mean differences against the corrector are +1.0 × 10^-3 nats for each method, without reported confidence intervals or adjusted p-values.Native-gain retention is 90.0% for TSA and 88.1% for STEM, but unprotected native methods remain ahead in mean gain; this comparison reports no timing, FLOP, or memory measurements.Source: Table 4 · p. 15, §4.6 · pp. 15–16

5 Conclusion

RTT turns internal learned updates into budgeted deployment decisions, certifying the prediction served against the frozen incumbent. Its benefits are qualified by costs and settings where certification or propagation limits its advantage.

5 Conclusion

  • RTT validates the executed trajectory before release, enforcing per-row probability floors and a call-level loss-increase bound, with whole-call fallback if certification fails.Its analytical floor projection and water-filling frontier provide a common basis for evaluating internal admission and output correction.Source: §5 · p. 16
  • Experiments show gains over matched one-pass correctors across the studied proposal and incumbent families, concentrated in near-cancellation and long-range-evidence regimes.Structural and continual-adaptation comparisons use a separate history-aware protocol.Source: §5 · p. 16
  • RTT is not an unconditional replacement for output correction or a guarantee of improvement under unaudited distribution shift.Earlier interventions can be limited by conservative continuation bounds, full-network proposals can make RTT slower than two rollouts, and short incumbent tails reduce its propagation advantage.Source: §5 · p. 16

Reproducibility and Code Availability

The reproducibility materials describe the audit records and replication controls, then specify incumbent families and proposal implementations used in RTT.

Reproducibility and Code Availability

  • The audit protocol fixes the pool manifest, selection order, node reservation, and seeds before the final audit, with episode records and an integer event ledger supporting reproduction.The code is released in the RTT GitHub repository, and appendices document implementation, proofs, audit protocols, diagnostics, and notation.Source: Reproducibility and Code Availability · p. 16
  • TSA/STEM reproduction requires pinned upstream revisions, state-export adapters, independent calibration and audit manifests, and event, timing, and prediction logs.The comparison's intervals, bounds, and resource measurements are not reported.Source: Reproducibility and Code Availability · p. 17

A Model, families, budgets and the release procedure

  • Incumbent families use known tube factors and envelopes; APPNP has a linear tail, while GCNII uses a generalized-Jacobian enclosure that covers tail kinks.The primitive decomposition is summarized in Table 6.Source: A Model, families, budgets and the… · p. 21, Table 6 · p. 21
  • GraphSAGE and GCN have tails contained within the window and last depth, while ResNet-50 interventions cover its last four bottleneck blocks and enclose the remaining operations.Attention references are covered at first order on bounded tubes.Source: A Model, families, budgets and the… · p. 21
  • Proposals include bank-based and signed one-hop candidates, with external proposal states mapped into incumbent space by frozen adapters; matched trust-rule correctors use the same candidate hull and certificate.The proposal heads read candidates through support-function features.Source: A Model, families, budgets and the… · p. 21

A.1 Replication specification for the TSA/STEM comparison

The replication specification records the TSA/STEM comparison protocol and fixes how candidate states, tail bounds, budgets, and solver branches are handled. It also distinguishes proxy-based gain allocation from the exact trajectory certificate.

A.1 Replication specification for the TSA/STEM comparison

  • TSA/STEM replication records preserve native predictions, exported states, accepted displacements, adapter and preprocessing details, and checks that disabling admissions returns the exact incumbent.A failed fidelity check is reported rather than hidden by retuning on the audit.Source: §A.1 · pp. 21–22
  • The fixed-history audit freezes proposal state before each scored call, so admission rules share candidate records; admission-dependent feedback requires its own calibration and audit.Proposal runtime is accounted for separately from RTT overhead.Source: §A.1 · p. 22
  • Tube bounds use interval factors for smooth tails and generalized-Jacobian enclosures for piecewise-linear transports, including when activation boundaries can be crossed.An exact affine-tail envelope requires every contributing downstream activation to remain fixed; on GCNII, 93% of rows are affine on their tube per call.Source: §A.1 · p. 22
  • A registered growth proxy allocates provisional per-row allowances and scales candidates before the solve, while the checker certifies using the exact tube.The proxy affects gain and fallback rate, not the certificate.Source: §A.1 · p. 22
  • The physical optimization uses block coordinates and hull constraints, while support-function features keep candidate inputs invariant to duplication, permutation, and interior points of the post-trim hull.The stated invariance concerns the post-trim hull because trimming is nonlinear.Source: §A.1 · pp. 22–23
  • The two-branch window budget is solved as separate convex problems, retaining the better feasible displacement rather than treating the union as convex.At contract depths, nonnegative-slope blocks can be screened out, while the joint uncertainty norm still couples the remaining blocks.Source: §A.1 · p. 23
  • For a fixed convex charge branch, the regularized block step has a unique displacement and non-increasing spend as its multiplier rises, allowing bisection under the stated feasibility assumptions.At zero remaining budget, the procedure takes a zero step.Source: §A.1 · p. 23

B Training, calibration and their cost

Training separates incumbent temperature fitting from proposal and head training, while full-loss targets use counterfactual incumbent continuations. Sequential calibration provides a marginal coverage guarantee under a fixed-member condition.

B Training, calibration and their cost

  • Training first fits incumbent temperature on held-out 2018 labels without changing network weights, then trains proposals and heads on episodes through the executed gate.One-pass correctors use the same episodes, labels, head capacity, and number of gradient steps.Source: B Training, calibration and their cost · p. 23
  • Full-loss targets require a counterfactual incumbent tail from each open depth to obtain the continuation-loss gradient at the executed state.Training uses about 3.8 incumbent passes for the registered caps; a single reverse pass along the executed trajectory gives a different gradient.Source: B Training, calibration and their cost · p. 24
  • Sequential calibration uses 512 fresh 2018 episodes per depth with earlier radii frozen, and gives at least 1 − sum(delta_l) coverage across open depths for a member fixed independently of calibration data.The guarantee is marginal over calibration and test episodes.Source: B Training, calibration and their cost · p. 24
  • Feeding a radius back into the trajectory that generated its calibration scores breaks exchangeability; performance-based member selection needs fresh post-selection calibration or a simultaneous guarantee.The independent final audit is a distinct source of statistical assurance.Source: B Training, calibration and their cost · p. 24

C Proofs

The proofs connect trajectory-validated bounds to label-uniform protection, characterize the exact output-space probability-floor frontier, and establish statistical guarantees under stated sampling conditions. They also identify settings where internal propagation can use evidence unavailable to a restricted output corrector.

Proofs

  • When the reference equals the Bayes prediction, the conditional cross-entropy identity leaves only a nonnegative divergence term, so no conditional gain is possible.The proof also expresses conditional expected cross-entropy as Bayes entropy plus a divergence.Source: C Proofs · p. 24
  • The probability-floor set is a singleton at h = 0 and otherwise consists of mixtures containing the reference; its constrained projections have a normalized floor-clipped solution.With positive q, the reverse-KL projection is finite; the output-space frontier is a concave allocation problem solved by water-filling.Source: C Proofs · pp. 24–26
  • Under the stated tube conditions, derivative and second-order bounds propagate through the incumbent's remaining layers to bound terminal loss changes uniformly over labels.The bounds use Jacobian controls on the tube and terminal logit bounds.Source: C Proofs · p. 25
  • A forward-enclosure tube contains incumbent continuations from executed steps, enabling continuation bounds to certify row and call-level damage for every label vector.The row predicate bounds logit oscillation, while the damage predicate sums certified charges against H+; fallback serves the reference prediction.Source: C Proofs · p. 25
  • The descent certificate uses a validated nonnegative remainder, with an exact KL remainder at the last depth, and keeps regularization in both model and slack accounting.Coverage-based uncertainty guarantees are marginal over calibration and an exchangeable test episode; selection requires the theorem's separate calibration condition.Source: C Proofs · pp. 25–26
  • The exact output-space optimum upper-bounds reachable interventions, while certified charges dominate exact damage; these nested feasible-set comparisons concern optima, not solver convergence.Local comparisons also require consistent branch and information accounting; strong convexity on separate branches does not establish a distance bound across their nonconvex union.Source: C Proofs · pp. 26–27
  • An internal update can exploit distant proposal evidence that a restricted corrector cannot see: the directed-chain example yields RTT gain of 0.120 nats at cost 0.380.A separate cancellation example shows that admitting only the helpful candidate matches the oracle projection's 0.089-nat gain at 0.161-nat cost.Source: C Proofs · p. 27
  • The assurance results give one-sided regression bounds, simultaneous testing, anytime-valid mean bounds, and conditional-robustness bounds only for laws within the hypothesized KL ball.A score-based divergence estimate does not establish that a deployment law belongs to that ball; uninspected-node flip bounds use uniform-subset hypergeometric inversion.Source: C Proofs · pp. 27–28

D Statistical protocol

The protocol separates fitting, selection, development, and audit data, and evaluates frozen policies under an i.i.d. episode premise. It reports the registered selection path, confidence-bound implementation, and a direct reserved-cohort audit alongside a conditional robustness analysis.

Protocol

  • Labels are split across fitting, calibration and selection, development, and final audit stages; audited statements rely on fresh independent query and corruption draws conditional on the graph and label masks.A continuous shared-state stream is a different sampling unit, and a node-cluster bootstrap is reported separately.Source: D Statistical protocol · p. 28

Audit

  • The release rule requires a certified mean of at least 3.0 × 10−3 nats, reduced to 1.5 × 10−3 at the tolerance point, and the final audit records 2,048 calls.The release ledger counts mutually exclusive outcomes as integers and attributes first-pass failures to the first failing predicate.Source: D Statistical protocol · p. 28, Table 9 · p. 28

Selection

  • The registered member is selected from an ordered library after testing five members on four pools of 1,024 fresh episodes; the sixth member's 6.86 gain is reported as a variant, not selected.The selected trajectory-radii member has certified mean 6.2, but the selection procedure alone does not establish a post-selection trajectory-coverage guarantee.Source: D Statistical protocol · p. 28

Bounds

  • Registered bets come within 3% of the Gaussian first-order width benchmark, while the horizon-free schedule is wider at this sample size.The observed ordering is not claimed to hold universally across confidence-sequence constructions.Source: D Statistical protocol · pp. 28–29

Transfer and robustness

  • The frozen policy's reserved 2020 cohort audit reports certified mean 1.7, while the conditional curve is 5.6 at estimated divergence 0.004; the direct audit carries the cohort-specific claim.The divergence estimate is a diagnostic with sampling error, not a certified upper bound establishing membership in the theorem's KL ball.Source: D Statistical protocol · p. 29, Table 10 · p. 29

E Where the gain goes: definitions

The section specifies the planted-partition setup and how internal frontier diagnostics are computed, while distinguishing achieved numerical levels from global optima. It also defines reported gain-grouping rules and the limits of real-data frontier estimates.

Planted partition and numerical scope

  • In the planted-partition setup, labels follow a known law on the arxiv architecture, with a 30%-row community made over- or underconfident by changing the label temperature.At γ = 0 the incumbent is calibrated by construction, and water-filling gives the exact output-space frontier for this known law.Source: E Where the gain goes: definitions · p. 29

Internal levels

  • Internal reference-tail levels are achieved numerical values, not certified global optima; warm starts establish their reported ordering but not global optimality.A feasible trajectory's gain lower-bounds its own exact supremum, but differences between computed levels need not bound differences between suprema.Source: E Where the gain goes: definitions · p. 29

Diagnostics

  • The planted-partition diagnostic decomposes terms into information, estimation, uncertainty, and execution components, but equating local certified opportunity with global certified gain is not assumed.Interpreting the last diagnostic column as a lower bound requires matching branch, coordinates, conditioning information, and trajectory conventions.Source: E Where the gain goes: definitions · pp. 29–30

Statistical diagnostics

  • Figure 5's panels cover audit-bound widths and sequences, statement-level bounds, per-node bounds, conditional robustness, and worst-case reweighting rates.The conditional curve includes the 2020 cohort's own audit band.Source: Figure 5 · p. 30

Real data

  • On real data, the Bayes prediction is replaced by a cross-fitted calibrated classifier, making reported frontier and ratio quantities plug-in estimates rather than known-law theorem quantities.The stated clipping sensitivity changes medians by at most 0.2.Source: E Where the gain goes: definitions · p. 30

Row groups

  • The gain-group definitions distinguish near-cancellation rows from rows whose tangent-basis influence mainly comes from beyond two hops, and require disjoint assignment before contributions form a partition.The theoretical remaining-tail receptive-field count and the empirical tangent-influence membership rule are distinct.Source: E Where the gain goes: definitions · p. 30

F Extended results

The extended results cover multiple graph, molecular, tabular, and image settings, and include frontier diagnostics, separation examples, robustness sweeps, and monitored-service traces. The supplied table descriptions specify comparison scope and caveats but do not provide most underlying result values.

Breadth

  • The breadth evaluation spans graph shifts and incumbents, ogbn-products and ogbg-molpcba, ACSIncome with a residual tanh MLP, and ImageNet-C with adapted ResNet-50 blocks.The listed graph incumbent families include APPNP, GCNII, GRAND, GraphSAGE, GCN, and GIN-style molecular encoders.Source: F Extended results · pp. 30–31

Frontier diagnostics

  • The frontier diagnostics table distinguishes posterior-based arxiv estimates from analytic planted-law frontiers and labels internal values as achieved numerical levels rather than exact suprema.Its nonlinear surrogate cannot be reproduced from rounded component values alone.Source: Table 11 · p. 31

Separation diagnostics

  • Figure 6 compares an analytic cancellation case with planted-graph oracle-gain shares as evidence distance changes for RTT and a two-hop corrector.The caption identifies the comparison but does not state a winner for the planted-graph results.Source: Figure 6 · p. 31

Comparisons

  • The mechanism-swap table reports one-at-a-time comparisons on the registered configuration, which are order-dependent and not an additive decomposition.The neighboring-method table does not establish that RTT wraps each listed method.Source: Table 13 · p. 32, Table 14 · p. 33

Breadth results

  • Table 15 reports final audits over 2,048 episodes, with estimated output frontier, RTT share, first-pass release rate, and incumbent-versus-RTT task metrics.Its scope is one protocol and task units, with ζ also reported.Source: Table 15 · p. 33

Molecular evaluation

  • The molecular table uses reserved scaffold halves for a custom finite-population protocol, while its official-test evaluation is not independent of custom splits drawn from that population.The caption identifies exact empirical test-half average precision as the custom protocol's metric.Source: Table 16 · p. 33

Robustness and monitoring

  • Figure 7 reports development-half robustness across three incumbents and eight seeds, with failed selections shown at zero, and sweeps four safety or optimization settings.Figure 8 reports gain, cumulative regressions, and alarm delays across 20 monitored streams, with the held-out corruption family beginning at call 200.Source: Figure 7 · p. 34, Figure 8 · p. 34

G Cost, numerics and the checker

The section reports RTT’s runtime trade-offs and describes how its independent checker accounts for numerical error and validates the executed trajectory. It also outlines the axes used to position RTT relative to other methods and the paper’s notation.

G Cost, numerics and the checker

  • Latency is measured per fresh 4,096-node call against a 41.6 ms incumbent pass, with RTT machinery adding 9.78 ms to proposal cost.The latency ratio counts proposal cost once; Table 17 presents sequential and two-device rollout comparisons.Source: G Cost, numerics and the checker · p. 34, Table 17 · p. 35
  • RTT uses fewer FLOPs than two rollouts for in-network proposals, but is slower than two sequential rollouts for full-network proposals.For full-network proposals, the stated case for RTT rests on gain and the per-node floor.Source: G Cost, numerics and the checker · p. 34
  • The float64 checker uses directed rounding and deducts allowances for executed-state residuals and float32 continuation error from the budgets.The reported checks include planted violations, 50-digit re-evaluations, and corrupted inputs; passing finite tests are evidence only for tested instances, not universal numerical soundness.Source: G Cost, numerics and the checker · p. 34, Table 18 · p. 35
  • Figure 9 shows that no candidate trajectory falls below the offline endpoint-cost diagonal, while fallback has zero served loss contrast.It also plots certified per-node bounds against exact one-sided damage and certified-to-exact charge ratios by depth.Source: Figure 9 · p. 36
  • Figure 10 compares per-depth interval, trajectory, and global factors, contract growth against its cap, and generic verifiers’ ratios and call times.Its verifier comparison uses the same executed interventions on 64-node calls over the last eight depths.Source: Figure 10 · p. 37

H Positioning and notation

  • Table 19 organizes method positioning by check timing, what changes, guarantees, reference-prediction computation, and supported updates; Table 20 lists notation.Source: Table 19 · p. 37, Table 20 · p. 37
Loading 2609.34904v1…