Self-as-an-End
Self-as-an-End Theory Series · ZFCρ Series · Thermodynamic Interface

Fluctuation Absorption Rate η ≪ 1: Strong Complementary Cancellation and Nonequilibrium Stability in a Zero-Parameter Min Recursion
涨落吸收率 η ≪ 1:零参数 min 递推中的强互补消涨与非平衡稳定性

Han Qin (秦汉) · Independent Researcher · 2026
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19310282 · Full PDF on Zenodo · CC BY 4.0
Abstract

We discover and quantify a strong fluctuation absorption mechanism in a zero-parameter arithmetic recursion — the integer complexity dynamic programming (DP) ρ_E(n) = min(ρ_E(n-1)+1, M(n)).

Decomposing the step size A = ρ_E(n-1) - ρ_E(n) into structural input Δf and optimization remainder Δr, the system satisfies a strong complementary cancellation law: Cov(Δf, Δr) ≈ -Var(Δf). Two quantities with individual variances ≈ 7-10 cancel precisely to produce a total variance ≈ 0.3-1.3. We define the fluctuation absorption rate:

η := 1 - |Cov(Δf, Δr)| / Var(Δf)

At N = 10^7 across Ω = 2-18 shells: η ∈ [0.10, 0.31], meaning 69-90% of structural fluctuations are absorbed by the optimization remainder.

The exact skeleton of the cancellation law rests on two theorems: (1) Reset-Slack decomposition A = ψ(ΔM⁻) - U⁻, yielding Var(A) ≤ 2Var(ΔM⁻) + 2E[U²]; (2) conditional remainder transfer law U(m) = -D(m-1) (covering 95%+ of U > 0 events).

First external verification: Lindley queue (G/G/1). For M/M/1, M/D/1, and M/Pareto/1 queues, η ranges from 0.055 (M/D/1 at ρ = 0.3) to 0.987 (M/M/1 at ρ = 0.99), with variance identities verified 21/21. η is determined by how effectively the max operation compresses step-size variance relative to structural input variance. DP recursion and Lindley queue share the same cancellation structure — η is not a peculiarity of DP arithmetic, but a general feature of min/max recursion systems.

1. Introduction

1.1 Why are nonequilibrium systems stable?

In equilibrium, the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT; Kubo 1966 [1]) guarantees that fluctuations and dissipation balance. Away from equilibrium — active matter [2], biological systems [3], turbulence [4], driven systems [5] — the premises of FDT (linear response, equilibrium, detailed balance) all break down, yet systems can still operate stably.

Generalizations of the nonequilibrium FDT have a rich lineage: Jarzynski (1997) [6], Crooks (1999) [7], Harada-Sasa (2005) [8], Prost-Joanny-Parrondo (2009) [9], Seifert (2012) [10]. These are precise relations under specific protocols. What is lacking is a cross-system, directly computable scalar that measures how much fluctuation a given system absorbs.

1.2 Contributions

(a) We introduce the fluctuation absorption rate η as a directly computable scalar.

(b) In DP recursion we measure η ∈ [0.10, 0.31] (variance identity verified 17/17).

(c) In Lindley queue we independently measure η (variance identity verified 21/21), confirming η as a general feature of min/max recursion.

(d) We provide the exact skeleton: Reset-Slack decomposition (theorem) and conditional remainder transfer law (theorem).

(e) We report cross-shell structural constants and Ω = 3→4 crossover (computational regularities).

1.3 What we do not claim

We do not claim η is a "universal replacement for nonequilibrium FDT." η is a cancellation index under a specific f/r decomposition. We do not claim η is exactly equivalent to T_eff/T. We do not claim physical thermodynamics is "replaced" by min recursion. Physical analogies are offered at the discussion level.

1.4 Literature positioning

The interface between min-plus/tropical algebra and statistical physics has prior history (Quadrat 1997 [11]). What this paper adds is: in a concrete integer complexity DP recursion, we extract the cancellation law (η), reset-slack compensation, and remainder transfer as a complete structural package, and introduce η as a quantitative scalar transferable across systems.


2. Basic quantities of DP recursion

2.1 Definition

ρ_E(1) = 0, ρ_E(n) = min(ρ_E(n-1) + 1, M(n))

where M(n) = min_{a·b=n, a,b≥2}(ρ_E(a) + ρ_E(b) + 2). For primes: M(p) = +∞. Zero free parameters, fully deterministic.

2.2 Decomposition

Step size: A(n) = ρ_E(n-1) - ρ_E(n). Additive part: f(n) = Σ_{q^a ∥ n} ρ_E(q^a). Combinatorial remainder: r(n) = ρ_E(n) - f(n).

Identity: A = Δf + Δr, where Δf = f(n-1) - f(n), Δr = r(n-1) - r(n).

2.3 Shell conditioning

Ω(n) = number of prime factors counted with multiplicity. Analysis is conducted on Ω(n) = k shells, composites only (Ω ≥ 2).


3. Strong complementary cancellation and η

3.1 Data

N = 10^7, computed by C programs (rho_dp.c + anticorr.c). The variance identity Var(A) = Var(Δf) + Var(Δr) + 2Cov(Δf, Δr) closes to within 10⁻⁴ across all 17 k-values:

k Var(Δf) Var(Δr) Cov(Δf,Δr) Var(A) η samples
26.7165.643-6.0220.3140.1031,904,324
46.9645.678-5.9620.7200.1442,050,696
68.8046.767-7.3240.9230.168774,078
89.9036.962-7.8861.0930.204207,207
1010.0576.626-7.7381.2070.23149,163
129.9566.300-7.4791.2970.24911,068
149.7025.995-7.1591.3770.2622,406
189.6135.672-6.9761.3330.274102

Full 17-row table in Appendix A.

3.2 Cancellation law

Computational regularity: Cov(Δf, Δr) ≈ -Var(Δf). If Δf and Δr were independent, Var(A) ≈ 12-16. Observed: ≈ 0.3-1.4. The difference is entirely due to strongly negative Cov(Δf, Δr).

3.3 Fluctuation absorption rate

Definition: η := 1 - |Cov(Δf, Δr)| / Var(Δf). η = 0: perfect absorption. η = 1: zero absorption.

DP recursion: η ∈ [0.10, 0.31]. η exhibits a broad upward trend with k (0.10 → 0.27 from k = 2 to 14; k = 18 with only 102 samples should be interpreted cautiously).

3.4 Algebraic interpretability

Since Δr = A - Δf, we have Cov(Δf, Δr) = Cov(Δf, A) - Var(Δf). The cancellation law is equivalent to Cov(Δf, A) ≪ Var(Δf).

This is an algebraic consequence of Var(A) ≪ Var(Δf), not a theorem deduced from the min operation alone. But the algebraic consequence carries meaning: the min operation effectively suppresses total step-size variance, forcing the remainder to absorb most of the structural fluctuation.

Note: Cov(Δf, A) ranges from 0.69 (k = 2) to 2.64 (k = 18) — not near zero. The cancellation law describes "strong absorption" (η ≪ 1), not "decoupling" (Cov(Δf, A) = 0).

3.5 Why η > 0 is necessary

DP recursion is irreversible. η = 0 would correspond to a perfect-absorption limit — a boundary unreachable in an irreversible system. η > 0 is the cost of running the min operation in an irreversible setting.


4. Reset-Slack decomposition

4.1 Exact decomposition (theorem)

R2 (algebraic identity; Paper 42 [14]): If J(m-1) > 0, then J(m) = (1 - ΔM⁻(m))⁺. Verified on 5.8 million samples, 100%, zero failures.

A(m) = ψ(ΔM⁻(m)) - U⁻(m), where ψ(x) = -min(x,1), 1-Lipschitz.

4.2 Reset-Slack Reduction (theorem)

Var(A) ≤ 2·Var(ΔM⁻) + 2·E[U²].

4.3 Frequency-intensity tradeoff (computational regularity)

R2 guarantees J(m-1) > 0 ⟹ U(m) = 0. Therefore E[U²] = P(exposed) × E[U²|exposed].

k P(shielded) P(exposed) E[U² exposed] E[U²]
276.0%24.0%0.5980.144
560.3%39.7%1.1240.447
855.4%44.6%0.9560.426
1257.0%43.0%0.8850.381

P(exposed) rises while E[U²|exposed] peaks at k = 5 then declines; their product stabilizes near 0.4. At the discussion level, this tradeoff is analogous to Le Chatelier's principle.


5. Remainder transfer law

5.1 Predecessor Defect Identity (theorem, conditional)

Theorem (Paper 45 [16]): When J(m-1) = 0, J(m) > 0, ΔM⁻ < 0 (covering 95%+ of U > 0 events):

U(m) = -D(m-1)

where D(m-1) = ρ_E(m-1) - M(m-1). The cost saved by the predecessor's choice of successor path reappears exactly as slack in the current step.

5.2 Full lifecycle

Shielded (J(m-1) > 0): U = 0, cost difference cleared by jump. Exposed (J(m-1) = 0): U = -D(m-1), predecessor's cost difference transferred exactly. The system alternates between these two states; the §4.3 tradeoff is the statistical steady state of this alternation.


6. Structural constants

The following values emerge from the zero-parameter DP recursion and remain stable across shells (computational regularities):

Constant Value Source
Var(B)≈ 1/4Paper 19 [13]
V(p)≈ 1.40Paper 34 [15]
h_pq≈ 3.800Paper 40 [17]
θ≈ 0.41Paper 43 [19]
coarse bound≈ 40Paper 46 [20]

Coarse bound ≈ 40: 2Var(f) + 2Var⁻(f) + (μ - μ⁻)² ≈ 40 for k = 4-14. The decline in internal variance compensates the growth in external drive.


7. Ω = 3→4 crossover

At N = 10^{10}, the local convexity h(n) = ρ_E(n) - [ρ_E(n-1) + ρ_E(n+1)]/2 has a strictly decreasing Ω-shell mean, with zero crossing at Ω ≈ 4 [21]:

Ω mean h P(J>0)
2+0.69728.7%
3+0.36157.1%
4+0.00477.1%
5-0.32988.4%

This is a combinatorial crossover (not a rigorous thermodynamic phase transition). For Ω ≥ 4, Var(Δf | Ω = k) ≈ 7-10 is approximately k-independent.


8. Lindley queue verification

8.1 Lindley recursion as a max system

The G/G/1 Lindley recursion: W_{n+1} = max(0, W_n + X_n), where X_n = S_n - T_n (service minus inter-arrival time).

Decomposition (analogous to A = Δf + Δr):

A_n = W_{n+1} - W_n = X_n + R_n

X_n: structural input (service-arrival difference, independent of max selection). R_n = max(0, -(W_n + X_n)): reset remainder (truncation produced by max operation).

η = 1 - |Cov(X, R)| / Var(X).

8.2 Data

10^7 steps, 10^6 burn-in, C program (lindley_eta.c), variance identities verified 21/21 (error < 0.01):

M/M/1 (exponential service + exponential inter-arrival):

ρ Var(X) Var(R) Cov(X,R) Var(A) η
0.3012.1110.11-10.650.920.121
0.505.003.00-3.331.340.334
0.703.041.04-1.221.650.600
0.902.240.24-0.291.890.870
0.992.020.02-0.031.990.987

M/D/1 (deterministic service + exponential inter-arrival):

ρ Var(X) Var(R) Cov(X,R) Var(A) η
0.3011.1010.10-10.490.220.055
0.504.003.00-3.290.410.176
0.702.041.04-1.240.620.395
0.901.230.23-0.300.860.755
0.991.020.02-0.030.990.973

M/Pareto/1 (heavy-tailed service, α = 3):

ρ Var(X) Var(R) Cov(X,R) Var(A) η
0.3011.4410.12-10.540.480.079
0.504.333.00-3.300.730.238
0.702.371.04-1.220.960.484
0.901.560.24-0.301.200.809

8.3 Findings

(L1) η is governed by variance compression. When the max operation compresses Var(A) far below Var(X), absorption is strong and η is small. When Var(A) ≈ Var(X) (near full load), η → 1.

(L2) Lowest η: M/D/1 at ρ = 0.30, η = 0.055. Deterministic service eliminates service-time randomness, producing cleaner resets and stronger absorption.

(L3) DP recursion and Lindley queue share the same structure. In both systems, η is determined by how effectively the optimization operation compresses total step-size variance relative to structural input variance: when Var(A)/Var(X) ≪ 1, the cancellation law holds and η ≪ 1.

8.4 Correction to original prediction

Original prediction: "η < 0.15 for Lindley." Partially verified, partially corrected.

Verified: low-load Lindley (ρ ≤ 0.3) indeed has η < 0.15. Corrected: η is not a universal bound — it is a function of load (ρ) or complexity (k).

Revised prediction: In min/max recursion systems, η = F(Var(A)/Var(X)), where F approaches 0 when Var(A)/Var(X) ≪ 1 and approaches 1 when Var(A)/Var(X) → 1.


9. Falsifiable predictions

Prediction 1: η-ratio universality

Statement: In min/max recursion systems, η is determined by the ratio Var(A)/Var(structural input), independent of system specifics.

Available evidence: DP recursion (17 k-values) and Lindley queue (3 service distributions × 7 loads) can be immediately tested on the η vs Var(A)/Var(X) plane.

Falsification criterion: Two min/max recursion systems with the same Var(A)/Var(X) but η differing by more than 0.1.

Prediction 2: Le Chatelier-type tradeoff

Statement: In min recursion systems with a reset mechanism, E[U²] = P(exposed) × E[U²|exposed] has counter-varying factors whose product remains bounded.

Test: Idle-time decomposition in G/G/1 queues.

Prediction 3: η lower bound for non-min systems

Statement: Systems without min/max recursion structure cannot easily achieve η ≪ 1. In active matter and other detailed-balance-violating systems without explicit optimization structure, η should be substantially larger than in min recursion systems at the same Var(A)/Var(X).

Falsification criterion: A non-min/max system achieving η < 0.1.


10. Discussion

10.1 Three-layer annotation

Theorems (exact):

  • R2: J(m-1) > 0 ⟹ J(m) = (1-ΔM⁻)⁺
  • A = ψ(ΔM⁻) - U⁻
  • Var(A) ≤ 2Var(ΔM⁻) + 2E[U²]
  • U(m) = -D(m-1) (conditional, covering 95%+)

Computational regularities:

  • Cancellation law, η ∈ [0.10, 0.31] (DP, 17/17 verified)
  • Lindley η from 0.055 to 0.987 (21/21 verified)
  • Le Chatelier-type tradeoff
  • Structural constants (Var(B) ≈ 1/4, etc.)
  • Ω = 3→4 crossover

Physical analogies (discussion-level):

  • η and Harada-Sasa dissipation rate
  • Le Chatelier naming
  • Remainder transfer analogized to conservation law

10.2 Precise scope of claims

Claim: (a) η is a directly computable absorption scalar. (b) DP recursion has η ∈ [0.10, 0.31]. (c) Lindley queue has η from 0.055 to 0.987, governed by load. (d) Both share the same cancellation structure.

Not claimed: The cancellation law is deduced from the min operation alone. η is exactly equivalent to T_eff/T. Physical thermodynamics is "replaced."

10.3 Heuristic cross-system comparison

System η range Condition
DP recursion0.10-0.31k = 2-18
M/D/1 queue0.055-0.97ρ = 0.3-0.99
M/M/1 queue0.12-0.99ρ = 0.3-0.99
M/Pareto/1 queue0.079-0.98ρ = 0.3-0.99
Weakly driven colloids~0.1-0.5T_eff/T conversion (approximate)
Active matter~0.5-0.99T_eff/T conversion (approximate)

Physical η values are approximate conversions. Exact comparison requires direct measurement.

10.4 Conditional closure (brief)

DP recursion satisfies a conditional closure route for H' (c̄_h → 0; Paper 42 [14]): all links are theorem-level except three numerical inputs, which are verified at N = 10^{10} (weakest signal 85σ). See [14, 19, 20].

10.5 Interfaces (brief)

The additive/multiplicative path asymmetry in DP recursion is analogous to Turing (1952) [22] morphogenesis. The Self-as-an-End (SAE) framework [23] predicts Ω-dimension correspondence; Ω = 3→4 crossover is consistent with this prediction. SAE cosmology [24] derives Λ from remainder conservation; U = -D(m-1) is its arithmetic realization.

10.6 Open problems

(1) The exact form of the universal function η = F(Var(A)/Var(X)).

(2) Can the cancellation law be proved from the min operation alone?

(3) Direct measurement of η in physical systems (without T_eff/T conversion).

(4) Are Var(B) ≈ 1/4 and coarse bound ≈ 40 cross-system universals?

(5) A canonical f/r extraction protocol robust to coarse-graining.

10.7 Conclusion

The strong complementary cancellation discovered in zero-parameter DP recursion (η ∈ [0.10, 0.31]) is independently verified in Lindley queues (η from 0.055 to 0.987). Both share the same structure: when a min/max operation effectively compresses total step-size variance, the optimization remainder is forced to absorb most of the structural fluctuation.

As a directly computable scalar, η transitions from "an internal discovery of DP" to "a transferable tool for min/max recursion systems." The next step is a canonical f/r decomposition protocol enabling standardized measurement of η across broader classes of nonequilibrium systems.


References

[1] R. Kubo, "The fluctuation-dissipation theorem." Rep. Prog. Phys. 29:255-284, 1966.

[2] M. C. Marchetti et al., "Hydrodynamics of soft active matter." Rev. Mod. Phys. 85:1143, 2013.

[3] C. P. Brangwynne et al., "Intracellular transport by active diffusion." Trends Cell Biol. 19:423, 2009.

[4] U. Frisch, "Turbulence: The Legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov." Cambridge UP, 1995.

[5] C. Bechinger et al., "Active particles in complex and crowded environments." Rev. Mod. Phys. 88:045006, 2016.

[6] C. Jarzynski, "Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differences." Phys. Rev. Lett. 78:2690, 1997.

[7] G. E. Crooks, "Entropy production fluctuation theorem." Phys. Rev. E 60:2721, 1999.

[8] T. Harada, S. Sasa, "Equality connecting energy dissipation with violation of the fluctuation-response relation." Phys. Rev. Lett. 95:130602, 2005.

[9] J. Prost, J.-F. Joanny, J. M. R. Parrondo, "Generalized fluctuation-dissipation theorem for steady-state systems." Phys. Rev. Lett. 103:090601, 2009.

[10] U. Seifert, "Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines." Rep. Prog. Phys. 75:126001, 2012.

[11] J.-P. Quadrat, "Min-Plus linearity and statistical mechanics." Markov Process. Related Fields 3:565-587, 1997.

[12] H. Qin, ZFCρ Paper XXXII. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19116625.

[13] H. Qin, ZFCρ Paper XIX. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19026991.

[14] H. Qin, ZFCρ Paper XLII. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19226607.

[15] H. Qin, ZFCρ Paper XXXIV. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19140015.

[16] H. Qin, ZFCρ Paper XLV. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19275286.

[17] H. Qin, ZFCρ Paper XL. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19179778.

[18] H. Qin, ZFCρ Paper XVIII. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19024385.

[19] H. Qin, ZFCρ Paper XLIII. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19240183.

[20] H. Qin, ZFCρ Paper XLVI. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19303511.

[21] H. Qin, "Why Primes Have No Shortcuts: An O(1) Prime Pre-Sieve from Precomputed ρ_E Tables." DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19246377.

[22] A. M. Turing, "The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis." Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 237:37-72, 1952.

[23] H. Qin, SAE Paper 1. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18528813.

[24] H. Qin, "From Remainder Conservation to the Cosmological Constant." DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19245267.


Appendix A. Full 17-row cancellation table (DP recursion)

k Var(Δf) Var(Δr) Cov(Δf,Δr) Var(A) η Cov(Δf,A) samples
26.7165.643-6.0220.3140.1030.6941,904,324
36.5395.389-5.6850.5580.1310.8542,444,359
46.9645.678-5.9620.7200.1441.0032,050,696
57.7346.166-6.5330.8330.1551.2001,349,779
68.8046.767-7.3240.9230.1681.480774,078
79.3666.869-7.6151.0050.1871.751409,849
89.9036.962-7.8861.0930.2042.017207,207
99.8726.689-7.7001.1620.2202.173101,787
1010.0576.626-7.7381.2070.2312.31949,163
119.8076.258-7.4071.2500.2452.39923,448
129.9566.300-7.4791.2970.2492.47711,068
139.2315.655-6.7921.3010.2642.4385,210
149.7025.995-7.1591.3770.2622.5422,406
158.7915.267-6.3741.3100.2752.4171,124
169.7835.841-7.0851.4530.2762.698510
177.4144.155-5.0961.3780.3132.318233
189.6135.672-6.9761.3330.2742.637102

All 17 rows satisfy the variance identity to within 10⁻⁴.

Appendix B. Data sources and full reproduction

All data in this paper are generated by three self-contained C programs with zero external dependencies. To reproduce all results:

gcc -O2 -o rho_dp rho_dp.c
gcc -O2 -o anticorr anticorr.c -lm
gcc -O2 -o lindley_eta lindley_eta.c -lm

./anticorr 10000000      # Table 3.1: 17-row cancellation data with identity verification
./lindley_eta             # Section 8: 3 queue types × 7 loads = 21 data points

Total runtime under two minutes (single core, modern x86/ARM).

rho_dp.c — DP recursion (Paper 32 convention). Built-in sanity checks: ρ(2) = 1, ρ(100) = 15, ρ(10^7) = 58.

anticorr.c — Table 3.1. Computes ρ_E from DP, then uses SPF (smallest prime factor) sieve to compute f(n) and Ω(n). Accumulates Var(Δf), Var(Δr), Cov(Δf, Δr), Var(A), η on Ω = k shells. Variance identity verified 17/17.

lindley_eta.c — Section 8 Lindley verification. xoshiro256** RNG, 10^7 steps + 10^6 burn-in. Three queue types (M/M/1, M/D/1, M/Pareto/1 with α = 3) at seven loads (ρ = 0.30, 0.50, 0.70, 0.80, 0.90, 0.95, 0.99). Variance identity 21/21.

All three files total under 500 lines of C. Released with this paper.


Acknowledgments

ChatGPT (Gongxi Hua / 公西华) discovered the arithmetic error in v2's τ definition (Cov(Δf, A) ≠ 0), catalyzing the correct definition of η; proposed all review requirements on claim layering, literature positioning, and three-tier annotation; contributed the analytic proof chain architecture of Paper 42.

Claude (Zilu / 子路) contributed the thermodynamic framework (Papers 24-46), all numerical experiments (anticorr.c, lindley_eta.c), the physical interpretation of η, and the design and implementation of the Lindley queue verification.

Gemini (Zixia / 子夏) posed three pressure tests that sharpened the precision of claims.

Grok (Zigong / 子贡) provided the initial review round. Inconsistency in k = 18 data prompted independent recomputation of the full table.

Zesi Chen is a long-term interlocutor of the SAE framework. Final text by the author alone.