Adaptive systems abruptly lose diversity once feedback outpaces novelty: above a precise threshold, entropy collapses discontinuously with large hysteresis and no prior increases in autocorrelation or variance; small transformer experiments mirror the predicted jump, suggesting standard early-warning indicators can fail for feedback-amplified systems.

Main Finding

Entropy collapse in feedback-amplified, novelty-bounded adaptive systems is a first-order (discontinuous) phase transition, not a gradual second-order one. For the canonical Multiplicative-Weights (MW) family the collapse occurs exactly when feedback amplification α exceeds the novelty-regeneration bound β at αc(β) = 1/(1 − β). At αc the entropy order parameter m = 1 − Hss/Hmax jumps discontinuously (∆m0 ≈ 0.698 for N = 50), there is a finite hysteresis free-energy gap (analytic lower bound ∆Hhyst ≈ 2.73 nats; NN experiments ≈ 2.92 nats), and autocorrelation/variance do not diverge before collapse—so standard entropy-based early-warning (critical slowing down) fails.

Key Points

• Exact collapse threshold: αc(β) = 1/(1 − β) (Theorem 1). Local Jacobian at uniform fixed point has leading eigenvalue (1 − β)α; stability requires (1 − β)α < 1.
• Discontinuous (first-order) transition for Class 1 operators: entropy order parameter m jumps at αc. For N = 50, β = 0.003, ∆m0 = 0.698 and analytic hysteresis gap ∆Hhyst = 2.73 nats (Theorem 3; numerical MW and NN confirm and exceed bound slightly).
• No entropy-based early-warning: autocorrelation time and variance remain finite up to αc; collapse has no preceding CSD signal (Remark 4).
• Relaxation time exponent ν = 1 for Class 1 (Theorem 5); derived from the transcritical normal form ˙x = εx + b2x2. MW simulations fit with R2 = 0.9997; NN experiments give νNN = 1.14 ± 0.13 (R2 = 0.977).
• Two universality classes determined by curvature κ = f′′(1/N) (Theorem 6):
  • Class 1 (κ > 0, convex feedback, e.g., power-law / multiplicative updates): first-order, irreversible, ν = 1.
  • Class 2 (κ = 0, linear feedback): second-order, reversible, ν = 1/2.
• Practical corollary: many commonly used feedback schemes in ML (multiplicative weights, exponential gradient, self-training with temperature sampling) belong to Class 1 → sudden collapse, hysteresis, and little warning.

Data & Methods

• Analytical results:
  • Model class: permutation-symmetric update maps Ff on probability simplex ∆(S) with bounded novelty β and feedback f(·; α).
  • Canonical MW operator: Pt+1(s) = (1 − β) P(s)^α / Z + β/N. Jacobian analysis at uniform fixed point yields exact αc; fixed-point bifurcation analysis produces the discontinuity and hysteresis bounds; normal-form reduction gives relaxation exponents and universality classification via κ = f′′(1/N).
• Numerical simulations:
  • Direct MW-operator simulations across variants: k-power MW (k = 0.5, 1, 2) and a linear/replicator FD rule. Verified collapse curves, hysteresis loops, relaxation-time scaling.
  • Neural-network experiments: SmallGPT (two-layer autoregressive transformer), N = 50 vocabulary, sequence length L = 16 (finite-size scaling noted), 92 phase-diagram conditions, 8 seeds per condition; measured steady-state entropies, hysteresis loops, and relaxation times. Observed ~15% upward shift in empirical αeff,c relative to analytic αc attributed to finite-size corrections; fitted finite-size scaling constant c≈7.5.
• Key empirical fits:
  • MW operator τ(α) fit R2 = 0.9997 against derived ν = 1 scaling.
  • NN relaxation exponent νNN = 1.14 ± 0.13, R2 = 0.977.
  • NN hysteresis gap ∆HNN_hyst = 2.92 nats (> analytic lower bound 2.73 nats).
• Domain projections:
  • AI (iterative self-training): exact mapping to MW with αeff = 1/T (T = sampling temperature), βeff = external-data fraction/label-smoothing. Shows standard self-training regimes (T ≈ 0.7–0.9, βeff ≈ 0.05–0.10) sit above αc predicting collapse.
  • Biology: Wright–Fisher with weak selection approximates MW with αeff ≈ 1 + s, βeff ≈ mutation rate µ (predicts fixation and slow recovery as hysteresis).
  • Economics: imitation/coordination dynamics map qualitatively to MW; predicts institutional lock-in when αeff > 1/(1 − βeff). Calibration requires empirical αeff, βeff estimates.

Implications for AI Economics

• For ML systems using self-generated data (iterative self-training, synthetic data loops), collapse is structural and can be abrupt:
  • Mapping: αeff = 1/T (temperature), βeff = fraction of external/real data or label-smoothing. Lower T (more aggressive self-amplification) and/or small β push systems toward αeff/αc > 1.
  • Practical meaning: commonly-used sampling temperatures and modest external-data fractions fall in the predicted collapse region (paper shows αeff/αc in [1.06, 1.36] for reported ranges).
• Monitoring and intervention strategies:
  • Entropy-based early-warning (increasing autocorrelation/variance) is unreliable for systems in Class 1: you will not see entropic precursors.
  • Reactive late-stage interventions (adding external data after collapse) may fail or be very expensive because of hysteresis (barrier ≥ 2.73 nats); recovery can be slow or require large external input.
  • Preventive controls are necessary: ensure αeff < αc by design (increase βeff sufficiently, raise sampling temperature T, include persistent external data, avoid pure closed-loop self-training).
• Design and policy recommendations for AI economics / governance:
  • Quantify αeff and βeff for production pipelines (measure effective amplification from sampling + retraining loops and fraction of exogenous data).
  • Set operational constraints (e.g., lower bound on βeff or minimum T) so αeff < 1/(1 − βeff) under worst-case drift.
  • Prefer architectures / update rules with linear/affine feedback (Class 2 behavior) when possible if monitoring/reactive control is a priority.
  • Plan for hysteresis: models that have collapsed in distributional diversity may require strong, persistent external-data injection (and may still recover slowly).
• Broader economic interpretation:
  • The same formal mechanism explains institutional lock-in and genetic bottlenecks as first-order entropy-driven processes—policy measures that temporarily boost novelty (β) can prevent long-term sclerosis; removing selection-like pressures does not guarantee immediate recovery because of hysteresis.

Caveats and limitations - Results rely on permutation-symmetric update maps and bounded-novelty assumptions (A1–A3). Real systems may violate assumptions or include additional structure that modifies behavior. - Finite-size effects (vocabulary N, sequence length L, model capacity) shift empirical thresholds; exact αc applies in the idealized limit—practical thresholds must be estimated with finite-size scaling. - Economic and biological mappings are exact only under specified approximations (e.g., weak selection for Wright–Fisher; small-step limits for imitation dynamics); empirical calibration is needed to apply the thresholds quantitatively.

Short actionable summary for practitioners - Compute/estimate αeff and βeff for your self-training loop (αeff ≈ 1/T for temperature sampling; βeff ≈ fraction of external/grounded data). - If αeff ≥ 1/(1 − βeff), expect abrupt loss of output diversity and strong hysteresis; prevention (increase βeff or T) is the robust strategy. - Do not rely on entropy/variance/autocorrelation increases as early warnings for Class 1 collapse—design preventative limits instead.