rrm workspace: TRM/HRM/SRM code, Maze dataset, dynamical-analysis pipelineHEADmain

Curated export for clone-and-run Maze training (2x A6000) + diagnostics.
trm/hrm pretrain.py carry trajectory-augmentation code (backward-compatible).
Heavy artifacts (checkpoints/wandb/npz) gitignored; see PROVENANCE.md.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

1 files changed, 23 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/research/flossing/rainer_email_bundle_20260605/figure_captions.md b/research/flossing/rainer_email_bundle_20260605/figure_captions.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..04872f6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/research/flossing/rainer_email_bundle_20260605/figure_captions.md
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# Figure Captions
+
+## Fig. 1: `figures/Fig1_lambda1_success_failure_HRM_TRM.png`
+
+First finite-time Lyapunov exponent distribution for successful versus failed inference trajectories in HRM and TRM checkpoints. Failures are shifted toward larger/more positive exponents, motivating chaos as a failure detector.
+
+## Fig. 2: `figures/Fig2_full_spectrum_success_failure_shift.png`
+
+Top Lyapunov spectrum for successful versus failed examples. The separation is not only a top-exponent effect; many leading modes shift toward expansion on failed examples.
+
+## Fig. 3: `figures/Fig3_trajectory_perturbation_improves_peak_accuracy.png`
+
+Peak exact accuracy for baseline training versus trajectory perturbation training. The perturbation method keeps the same supervised input/target pair but trains additional recurrent rollouts with small latent-state perturbations to reach the same answer. This is a ceiling/peak result; HRM later shows final-checkpoint collapse.
+
+## Fig. 4: `figures/Fig4_optional_PTRM_Q_head_vs_stability.png`
+
+Optional context. In PTRM-style stochastic multi-rollout inference, the learned Q-head score is correlated with a finite-difference stability proxy on mixed-success problems, suggesting that learned rollout selection may partly approximate a low-dimensional stability score.
+
+# Caveats
+
+- Lyapunov measurements are finite-time diagnostic estimates on sampled subsets, not full asymptotic exponents.
+- Fig. 3 reports best-checkpoint/peak accuracy, not necessarily final-checkpoint accuracy.
+- The gradient flossing analogue is still preliminary; the main question for Rainer is conceptual, not a claim that flossing does or does not work in RRMs.