Kernel Dynamics under Path Entropy Maximization

Let $\Gamma$ denote the space of trajectories $\gamma:[0,T]\to\mathcal{X}$ over a state space $\mathcal{X}$. MaxCal selects the path distribution $p[\gamma]$ that maximizes the path entropy

$$\mathcal{S}[p]=-\sum_{\gamma}p[\gamma]\ln\frac{p[\gamma]}{q[\gamma]}$$

(1)

subject to dynamical constraints $\langle f_{i}[\gamma]\rangle=F_{i}$, where $q[\gamma]$ is a reference path measure [2]. The resulting distribution takes the form

$$p[\gamma]\propto q[\gamma]\exp\!\left(-\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}f_{i}[\gamma]\right)$$

(2)

where $\lambda_{i}$ are Lagrange multipliers. MaxEnt (Jaynes) is recovered when trajectories reduce to single configurations. MaxCal derives Green-Kubo relations, Onsager reciprocity, Prigogine’s minimum entropy production, and master equations as special cases [2].

A Mercer kernel $k$ induces an RKHS $\mathcal{H}_{k}$ via the feature map $\phi:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{H}_{k}$, $\phi(x)=k(\cdot,x)$. The kernel is treated as the primitive representational object, while Fisher-Rao supplies the canonical information geometry on the associated statistical manifold; kernel change therefore alters the effective geometry of inference by altering the representational substrate on which that manifold is defined. Concretely, the square-root embedding $p\mapsto\sqrt{p}\in L^{2}(\mathcal{X},\nu)$ pulls back the $L^{2}$ inner product to the Fisher-Rao metric [4]

$$g^{F}_{ij}(p)=\int\frac{\partial\ln p}{\partial\theta^{i}}\frac{\partial\ln p}{\partial\theta^{j}}\,p\,d\nu$$

(3)

The Hellinger kernel $k_{H}(p,q)=\int\sqrt{p\,q}\,d\nu$ is the unique kernel whose induced geometry respects sufficient statistics [5]. The kernelized Stein discrepancy identifies the score function $\nabla_{x}\log p(x)$ as the Riesz representative of the Stein operator in $\mathcal{H}_{k}$ [6].

The central modeling assumption of this paper is that $k$ is prior to all of this structure: the metric, the score function, the mutual information $I$, and the Sagawa-Ueda work bound

$$W_{\text{extracted}}\leq\Delta F+k_{B}T\cdot I$$

(4)

are treated as derived objects once a kernel is fixed.

The following assumptions are used throughout the paper.

1. (A1)

   $\mathcal{X}$ is a Polish (complete, separable, metrizable) space.

2. (A2)

   $\nu$ is a $\sigma$-finite reference measure on $\mathcal{X}$.

3. (A3)

   Every kernel $k\in\mathcal{K}$ is Mercer (continuous, symmetric, positive semi-definite) and Hilbert-Schmidt: $\iint k(x,x^{\prime})^{2}\,d\nu(x)\,d\nu(x^{\prime})<\infty$.

4. (A4)

   The agent–environment system admits a joint distribution $P_{\mathrm{agent,env}}$ from which the mutual information $I_{k}=I(A;E\mid k)$ is computed by restricting the agent’s representation to the RKHS $\mathcal{H}_{k}$.

5. (A5)

   Thermodynamic bookkeeping is quasi-static: the Landauer bound $\delta W\geq k_{B}T\,\delta I$ (in nats) is attainable in the reversible limit.

6. (A6)

   All information quantities ($I$, $D_{\mathrm{KL}}$) are measured in nats unless stated otherwise, so that Landauer’s bound reads $k_{B}T$ per nat (equivalently $k_{B}T\ln 2$ per bit).

The critical structural feature of $\mathcal{K}$ is that each point $k\in\mathcal{K}$ determines a representational substrate relative to which an effective information geometry on $\mathcal{P}$ may be analyzed. A path $\gamma(t)\in\mathcal{K}$ therefore generates a one-parameter family of Riemannian manifolds $(\mathcal{P},g_{\gamma(t)})$. The landscape over which the kernel evolves is itself a function of the kernel’s current value. Writing $g_{k}$ for the metric induced by kernel $k$, the chain rule gives

$$\frac{d}{dt}g_{\gamma(t)}=Dg\big|_{\gamma(t)}[\dot{\gamma}(t)]$$

(6)

where $Dg|_{k}:T_{k}\mathcal{K}\to\mathrm{Sym}^{2}(T^{*}\mathcal{P})$ is the Fréchet derivative of the map $k\mapsto g_{k}$ at $k$, evaluated in direction $\dot{\gamma}(t)$. This endogeneity—the landscape depends on the current position—distinguishes kernel dynamics from ordinary optimization on a fixed manifold.

To make the framework concrete, consider a finite kernel family $\mathcal{K}_{2}=\{k_{A},k_{B}\}$ and discrete time $t=0,1,\dots,T$. Let a trajectory be $\gamma=(k_{t=0},\dots,k_{t=T})$ with $k_{t}\in\mathcal{K}_{2}$. Choose a Markov reference process

$$\mathcal{Q}[\gamma]=\pi_{0}(k_{0})\prod_{t=0}^{T-1}q(k_{t+1}\mid k_{t}).$$

(7)

Impose two path constraints: expected cumulative switching cost

$$C[\gamma]=\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}\mathbbm{1}[k_{t+1}\neq k_{t}],$$

(8)

and expected cumulative information gain

$$G[\gamma]=\sum_{t=0}^{T}I_{k_{t}}.$$

(9)

The MaxCal distribution is then

$$P[\gamma]\propto\mathcal{Q}[\gamma]\exp\!\left(-\lambda_{C}C[\gamma]+\lambda_{G}G[\gamma]\right).$$

(10)

This yields an effective two-state dynamics with transition odds

$$\frac{P(k_{t+1}=k_{B}\mid k_{t}=k_{A})}{P(k_{t+1}=k_{A}\mid k_{t}=k_{A})}\propto\frac{q(B\mid A)}{q(A\mid A)}\exp\!\left(-\lambda_{C}+\lambda_{G}\Delta I\right),$$

(11)

where $\Delta I=I_{k_{B}}-I_{k_{A}}$. The toy model exhibits an explicit threshold: switching is favored when $\lambda_{G}\Delta I>\lambda_{C}$. This is the simplest instantiation of the tradeoff between thermodynamic/transition cost and informational gain.

Physically meaningful constraints on kernel trajectories include:

1. 1.

   Thermodynamic cost constraint. The expected work required to shift the kernel along a path must not exceed available free energy:

   $$\mathbb{E}_{P}\!\left[\int_{0}^{T}\dot{W}_{k}(t)\,dt\right]\leq\mathcal{F}$$

   where $\dot{W}_{k}$ is the instantaneous thermodynamic cost of kernel change (derived below in Section IV-D).

2. 2.

   Fidelity constraint. The kernel must maintain sufficient mutual information about the environment’s relevant microstates:

   $$\mathbb{E}_{P}[I_{k(t)}]\geq I_{\min}(t)$$

3. 3.

   Consistency constraint. The kernel must remain consistent with the agent’s current generative model. Writing $p_{\mathrm{env}}$ for the environmental data distribution and $q_{k}$ for the agent’s model distribution under kernel $k$ (see A4):

   $$\mathbb{E}_{P}\!\left[D_{\mathrm{KL}}(p_{\mathrm{env}}\|q_{k(t)})\right]\leq\epsilon$$

Maximizing $\mathcal{S}[P]$ subject to these constraints yields

$$P[\gamma]\propto\mathcal{Q}[\gamma]\,\exp\!\Bigl(-\lambda_{1}\int_{0}^{T}\dot{W}_{k}\,dt\\ +\lambda_{2}\int_{0}^{T}I_{k(t)}\,dt-\lambda_{3}\int_{0}^{T}D_{\mathrm{KL}}(t)\,dt\Bigr)$$

(12)

This is the least-assuming distribution over kernel trajectories consistent with thermodynamic, informational, and consistency constraints. The mode of $P$ is the most probable kernel trajectory under the chosen reference measure and constraints, and may be interpreted as the least-assuming path of distinction-change available to the agent model under those assumptions.

The cost of moving from kernel $k$ to $k+\delta k$ is the work required to update the agent’s distinction-making capacity. Creating mutual information between agent and environment requires physical work by Landauer’s principle [11]; the Sagawa-Ueda bound (4) quantifies the complementary direction (work extraction from existing correlations). Together they imply that acquiring mutual information $\delta I_{k}$ that was inaccessible to $k$ but accessible to $k+\delta k$ costs at minimum (in nats, per assumption A6):

$$\delta W_{k}\geq k_{B}T\cdot\delta I_{k}$$

(13)

where

$$\delta I_{k}=I_{k+\delta k}(A;E)-I_{k}(A;E)$$

(14)

with $A$, $E$ the agent and environment variables of (A4). Equation (13) may be read as a Landauer-type lower bound for physically realized kernel change under assumptions (A4)–(A6): gains in discriminative capacity that are physically realized by the agent carry a lower-bounded thermodynamic cost. Combining (13) with the chain rule $\dot{I}_{k}=\langle\nabla_{k}I_{k},\dot{k}\rangle_{\mathrm{HS}}$ and Cauchy-Schwarz gives a speed limit on kernel evolution:

$$\bigl\|\dot{k}(t)\bigr\|_{\mathrm{HS}}\leq\frac{\dot{\mathcal{F}}(t)}{k_{B}T\cdot\|\nabla_{k}I_{k}\|_{\mathrm{HS}}}$$

(15)

where $\nabla_{k}I_{k}$ is the Hilbert-Schmidt gradient of $I$ with respect to $k$, and $\dot{\mathcal{F}}$ is the rate of free-energy supply. Kernels can only change as fast as free energy permits.

Stability of $k^{*}$ concerns whether small perturbations $k^{*}+\epsilon\,h$ (with $h\in T_{k^{*}}\mathcal{K}$) grow or decay. Let $\mathcal{S}^{*}(k)$ denote the optimized path entropy when the kernel is held fixed at $k$ (i.e., $\mathcal{S}^{*}(k)=\max_{P}\mathcal{S}[P]$ subject to the constraints of Section IV, with the kernel frozen at $k$). A self-consistent kernel $k^{*}$ is stable if the Hessian of the self-consistency map satisfies

$$D^{2}_{k}\mathcal{S}^{*}\big|_{k^{*}}[h,h]<0\quad\text{for all }h\in T_{k^{*}}\mathcal{K},\;h\neq 0.$$

(16)

Unstable directions correspond to bifurcations—transitions between distinct distinction regimes. In the two-kernel model of Section IV-A, stability reduces to whether perturbations in the effective gain-cost balance $\lambda_{G}\Delta I-\lambda_{C}$ return the system to the same occupancy regime or drive a transition to the alternative kernel; this illustrates in finite dimensions the broader interpretation of unstable directions as transition channels between distinction regimes.

The basins of attraction of stable self-consistent kernels are the precise mathematical content of what we informally call niches, paradigms, and mastery domains.

In Wilson’s renormalization group [7], integrating out degrees of freedom below a momentum cutoff $\Lambda$ defines a map $R_{\Lambda}:\mathcal{K}\to\mathcal{K}$. The RG flow is the trajectory

$$\frac{dk}{d\ln\Lambda}=\beta(k)$$

(17)

where $\beta$ is the beta function. Fixed points of RG flow satisfy $\beta(k^{*})=0$—scale-invariant kernels at which the distinction between microscale and macroscale collapses.

For an infinitely wide neural network, the neural tangent kernel (NTK) $\Theta(x,x^{\prime})$ governs the training dynamics [8]:

$$\frac{d\hat{y}}{dt}=-\Theta\cdot\nabla_{\hat{y}}\mathcal{L}$$

(18)

During training of finite networks, $\Theta$ evolves. The MaxCal kernel framework predicts:

1. 1.

   The trajectory of $\Theta(t)$ through $\mathcal{K}$ maximizes path entropy subject to cross-entropy loss reduction at rate $\geq\dot{\mathcal{L}}_{\min}$.

2. 2.

   Fixed points of NTK evolution correspond to networks that have learned a self-consistent representation of their training distribution—feature hierarchies that are self-reinforcing.

3. 3.

   The thermodynamic cost bound (13) predicts a minimum energy dissipation during NTK evolution: $\dot{W}\geq k_{B}T\cdot\dot{I}_{\Theta}$, which may be empirically testable via GPU power consumption during training.

In the NTK case, the appeal of the framework is not merely analogical: $\Theta_{t}$ is a measurable evolving kernel, and the framework predicts constraints on its trajectory relative to information gain and energetic expenditure during training.

Consider a lake with a time-varying bloom field $b_{t}(x)$ (e.g., chlorophyll concentration) over spatial location $x\in\Omega$. A natural operational realization is a heterogeneous team: an autonomous surface vehicle (ASV) carrying an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) with coordinated dock and undock. The ASV supplies long-endurance transit, surface-visible fields (e.g., temperature and surface color proxies), and a stable platform for docking, recharge, and data offload; the AUV, when undocked, samples vertical structure (e.g., chlorophyll maximum depth, oxygen, turbidity) that the surface cannot see. The key operational difficulty is that bloom fronts advect and deform on timescales comparable to the mission duration, while subsurface structure can misalign with surface patches—so the team’s belief couples two partially overlapping observation operators fused at rendezvous.

Let $\sigma_{t}\in\{\mathrm{docked},\mathrm{undocked}\}$ denote the coordination state. While $\sigma_{t}=\mathrm{docked}$, the AUV is carried and acts as payload; undocking initiates a dive phase with distinct motion costs and information yield. Let $k_{t}$ be the kernel used by the onboard model for spatiotemporal covariance in bloom dynamics (possibly including depth or modality-specific components after vertical profiles are merged at dock), and let $u_{t}(x)$ denote posterior uncertainty under $k_{t}$. Actions decompose into ASV waypoints $a_{t}^{\mathrm{ASV}}$, AUV profile commands when $\sigma_{t}=\mathrm{undocked}$, and feasible dock/undock transitions; subsurface samples accrue only in the undocked phase. Write $\mathcal{A}_{t}$ for the joint tuple $(a_{t}^{\mathrm{ASV}},a_{t}^{\mathrm{AUV}},\sigma_{t})$. Mission resources impose constraints:

$$\begin{split}\sum_{t}\bigl(c_{\mathrm{move}}^{\mathrm{ASV}}(a_{t}^{\mathrm{ASV}},a_{t-1}^{\mathrm{ASV}})+c_{\mathrm{dive}}^{\mathrm{AUV}}(a_{t}^{\mathrm{AUV}},\sigma_{t})\bigr)&\leq E_{\max},\\ \sum_{t}\mathbbm{1}[\text{collect at }t]&\leq N_{\max}.\end{split}$$

(19)

For sample return to base (or shore offload), a feasibility reserve must be maintained; for heterogeneous operation, rendezvous between ASV and surfacing AUV imposes an analogous coupled constraint on relative position and time:

$$\begin{split}c_{\mathrm{return}}(a_{t}^{\mathrm{ASV}},\text{base})&\leq E_{\mathrm{reserve}}(t),\\ c_{\mathrm{meet}}(a_{t}^{\mathrm{ASV}},a_{t}^{\mathrm{AUV}},\sigma_{t})&\leq\Delta_{\mathrm{meet}}(t).\end{split}$$

(20)

The adaptive objective is to maximize expected information gain about future bloom structure per mission cost:

$$\begin{split}\max_{\{\mathcal{A}_{t}\},\{k_{t}\}}\;\mathbb{E}\!\left[\sum_{t}\Delta I_{t}(k_{t},\mathcal{A}_{t})\right]&-\lambda_{E}\sum_{t}c_{\mathrm{move}}^{\mathrm{ASV}}(a_{t}^{\mathrm{ASV}},a_{t-1}^{\mathrm{ASV}})\\ &-\lambda_{N}\sum_{t}\mathbbm{1}[\text{collect at }t],\end{split}$$

(21)

where dive costs are subsumed in the energy budget above, with dynamics over kernels governed by the MaxCal tradeoff in Section IV. Intuitively, $k_{t}$ should reweight distinctions toward moving bloom boundaries and shear-aligned filaments, and—after each dock—toward consistent cross-depth covariance, because those structures yield maximal uncertainty reduction per cycle subject to rendezvous feasibility.

This case is operational rather than metaphorical because $k_{t}$ can be interpreted as a task-specific similarity or acquisition function governing what distinctions are worth sensing under budgeted action. This yields a concrete adaptation argument: fixed kernels induce static sampling lattices that under-sample moving bloom fronts, while kernel adaptation concentrates trajectories along information-rich transients subject to return-feasibility constraints. For ASV–AUV teams, undock timing is an additional discrete decision: dives should occur when subsurface uncertainty is high relative to surface-observable structure, and heavy kernel or map updates can run on the ASV while docked.

Biological evolution instantiates kernel dynamics at the level of perceptual and cognitive systems. The fitness kernel $k_{f}(\text{genotype},\text{genotype}^{\prime})$ encodes which genetic differences translate into phenotypic differences that selection can act on. This kernel co-evolves with the genome under:

$$\frac{dk_{f}}{dt}=-\lambda\frac{\delta\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{fitness}}}{\delta k}+\eta(t)$$

(22)

where $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{fitness}}$ is a free-energy-like fitness functional and $\eta$ is mutational noise. Speciation events correspond to bifurcations in kernel space—transitions between basins of attraction of distinct self-consistent fitness kernels. Operationally, $k_{f}$ can be estimated from genotype–phenotype–fitness datasets by fitting local similarity operators that predict fitness response to perturbations.

In [3], the design of a large-scale public artwork was modeled as a product kernel problem: the final artifact is the configuration that simultaneously satisfies the inductive kernels of all contributors—mythological, craft, structural, and environmental.

The MaxCal kernel framework provides the dynamical substrate for this observation.

A concrete illustration is provided by Navagunjara Reborn, a large-scale Burning Man sculpture whose design and realization can be read as a trajectory through interacting kernels rather than execution of a fixed blueprint. In that project, the final artifact emerged from the simultaneous action of mythological, craft, structural, logistical, and environmental kernels: the lead artist’s symbolic and site-specific priors, Rajesh Moharana’s dhokra metalwork intuitions, Ekadashi Barik’s cane-forming expertise, the engineering team’s load-bearing and fabrication constraints, and the Black Rock Desert’s wind, transport, and fire-safety requirements. The sculpture’s realized form was not the maximizer of a single objective, but the configuration that remained viable under all of these distinction-making systems at once. In this sense, the project instantiates the product-kernel view dynamically: iterative digital modeling, photogrammetric feedback, structural redesign, material substitution, and on-playa improvisation can be interpreted as successive updates to a collective kernel trajectory, progressively narrowing the reachable design space until a coherent artifact became the least-assuming surviving path. At the level of individual practice, the master artisan’s embodied kernel appears as a locally stable fixed point in morphological decision space; at the level of the collaboration, the completed sculpture is the transient intersection of several such fixed points under hard environmental and logistical constraints.

A master craftsman’s kernel (e.g., Rajesh Moharana’s dhokra metalwork kernel encoding lost-wax bronze topology) is a stable self-consistent kernel: the distinctions encoded by decades of practice are self-reinforcing under the thermodynamic dynamics of craft execution [3]. Such a kernel is a fixed point because the geometry it induces on morphological space makes it the maximum-caliber choice given the constraints of the tradition. In this domain, a measurable proxy for kernel evolution is a similarity operator inferred from artifact morphology and process traces across an apprenticeship time series.

Apprenticeship is a trajectory through kernel space from an unstable initial kernel toward the master’s fixed point. The thermodynamic cost bound (13) predicts that this trajectory requires sustained metabolic investment proportional to the mutual-information gap between novice and master kernels.

The three frameworks compared here share information as a central concept and differ primarily in their primitive variables:

The present paper proposes a synthesis in which kernel dynamics describes how kernels traverse the landscape between chemical origin constraints (assembly theory) and stable operating points (static-kernel limit), along least-assuming trajectories selected by MaxCal.