% !TEX program = pdflatex
\documentclass[11pt]{article}
% ---------- Encoding & Fonts ----------
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{lmodern}
% ---------- Page & Typography ----------
\usepackage[a4paper,margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage{setspace}
\setstretch{1.08}
% ---------- Math & Symbols ----------
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,bm,mathtools,amsthm}
\usepackage{bbm}
% ---------- Figures, Tables, Graphics ----------
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{float}
% ---------- Colors, Hyperlinks, Lists ----------
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue!60!black,
urlcolor=blue!60!black,
citecolor=blue!60!black,
pdfauthor={C.L. Vaillant},
pdftitle={Operationalizing Reflexive Structure : A Unified Framework for Measuring Self-Monitoring and Stability in Artificial Systems}
}
% ---------- TikZ / PGFPlots ----------
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta,positioning,fit,backgrounds,calc,shapes.geometric,shapes.misc}
\usepackage{pgfplots}
\pgfplotsset{compat=1.18}
% ---------- Theorem Environments ----------
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
% ---------- Operators & Notation ----------
\DeclareMathOperator{\KL}{KL}
\DeclareMathOperator{\MI}{I}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{Var}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
\newcommand{\dd}{\mathrm{d}}
\newcommand{\1}{\mathbbm{1}}
% ---------- Title ----------
\title{\textbf{Operationalizing Reflexive Structure:}\\
A Unified Framework for Measuring Self-Monitoring and Stability in Artificial Systems}
\author{%
\textbf{C.\,L. Vaillant}\\
\small Independent Researcher\\
\small \href{mailto:codyvaillant@gmail.com}{codyvaillant@gmail.com} \quad|\quad
\href{https://www.rgemergence.com}{rgemergence.com} \quad|\quad
\href{https://bsky.app/profile/clvaliant.bsky.social}{@clvaliant.bsky.social}\\
\small Phone: +1 (647) 969-1669
}
\date{\today}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\noindent
This paper presents the \emph{Operationalizing Reflexive Structure} framework, integrating recent developments in control theory, recursive cognition, and reflexive system modeling. It defines a falsifiable, empirical methodology for detecting and quantifying self-monitoring behavior---\emph{reflexive structure}---in artificial cognitive systems. Building on prior work, we introduce three operational \emph{reality criteria} (causal efficacy, measurement invariance, predictive lift), a \emph{Minimal Reflexive Signature} spanning six measurable dimensions (stability, robustness, recursion, hubness, introspection, repair), and a data-driven \emph{Reflexive Index}. Version 1.1 adds a control-theoretic interpretation of stability margins, a reproducibility and preregistration protocol, and contextual links to the Recursive Generative Emergence (RGE) and Recursive Collapse Model (RCM) frameworks. The Reflexive Loop visualization unifies these elements into a single operational cycle showing how systems observe, regulate, and repair themselves across time. The result is a coherent bridge between theoretical recursion and measurable self-reference.
\end{abstract}
% =========================================================
\section{Introduction and Motivation}
Understanding whether an artificial system monitors its own internal states---and how that process can be measured---remains a central problem in AI, neuroscience, and systems theory. Philosophical approaches have long speculated about ``self-awareness''; here we pursue a formal, falsifiable method grounded in causal inference and control theory.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=2cm,>=Stealth,auto,thick]
\node[draw,rounded corners,fill=blue!10,inner sep=8pt] (input) {Input / Observation};
\node[draw,rounded corners,fill=green!10,right=of input,inner sep=8pt] (core) {Recurrent Core $f_{\mathrm{rec}}$};
\node[draw,rounded corners,fill=yellow!10,right=of core,inner sep=8pt] (echo) {Echo Function $g(\Delta \mathcal{U}_t)$};
\node[draw,rounded corners,fill=orange!10,right=of echo,inner sep=8pt] (feedback) {Feedback $\mathcal{U}_{t+1}$};
\draw[->] (input) -- node[above]{Information Flow} (core);
\draw[->] (core) -- node[above]{State Change $\Delta \mathcal{U}_t$} (echo);
\draw[->] (echo) -- node[above]{Reflexive Echo} (feedback);
\draw[->,bend left=30,gray,dashed] (feedback.north east) to[out=60,in=120] node[above]{Self-Observation} (input.north west);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\textbf{The Reflexive Loop.} The operational cycle of reflexivity: an agent receives input, transforms its internal state, observes its own transformation (echo), and integrates that information back into future states. This loop constitutes the measurable foundation of structural self-monitoring.}
\end{figure}
This framework treats reflexivity as a control problem: the capacity to stabilize internal representations under perturbation, to maintain coherent prediction through change, and to repair internal discrepancies via feedback.
% =========================================================
\section{Theoretical Foundations}
\subsection{The Umwelt and Operational Reality}
Let $\mathbf{x}_t$ denote internal states, $\mathbf{I}_t$ external inputs, $\Theta$ parameters, and $\mathcal{L}$ constraints. The umwelt $\mathcal{U}_t = h(\mathbf{x}_t)$ is the agent’s internal representational manifold. We define the recurrent update:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{x}_{t+1} = f_{\mathrm{rec}}(\mathbf{x}_t,\mathbf{I}_t;\Theta,\mathcal{L}), \quad
\Delta\mathcal{U}_t = \mathcal{U}_t - \mathcal{U}_{t-1}.
\end{equation}
We assert three reality criteria for internal representations:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(R\arabic*),leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{Causal Efficacy:} Internal states causally affect outcomes.
\item \textbf{Measurement Invariance:} Representations remain consistent across observation bases.
\item \textbf{Predictive Lift:} Internal states improve out-of-distribution predictions.
\end{enumerate}
When all three criteria hold, the internal manifold $\mathcal{U}$ can be regarded as \emph{operationally real}.
\subsection{Control-Theoretic Interpretation}
The reflexive loop can be viewed as a feedback control system. Perturbations $\delta_t$ induce deviations in $\mathcal{U}_t$, and the system’s \emph{robustness} $R$ and \emph{repair rate} $\varepsilon/\tau_{\mathrm{pert}}$ quantify its stability margin. Small-signal linearization yields:
\begin{equation}
\Delta \mathcal{U}_{t+1} = J_f \Delta \mathcal{U}_t + J_g g(\Delta\mathcal{U}_t) + \delta_t,
\end{equation}
where $J_f,J_g$ are Jacobians. Stability requires $\rho(J_f + J_g) < 1$. The metrics in \S\ref{sec:signature} operationalize this condition empirically.
% =========================================================
\section{Minimal Reflexive Signature}
\label{sec:signature}
We measure reflexive structure across six dimensions: stability, robustness, recursion, hubness, introspection, and repair. Together they form the \emph{Minimal Reflexive Signature (MRS)}. Each dimension corresponds to a measurable control or information property.
\subsection{Definitions}
Let $A_t$ denote an \emph{attentional island}, a subgraph of nodes with high eigenvector centrality in the echo-coupling graph $G_t=(V,E_t)$. We compute:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em,label=(\alph*)]
\item \textbf{Stability:} $\mathrm{Overlap}(A_t,A_{t+\Delta}) = \frac{|A_t\cap A_{t+\Delta}|}{|A_t\cup A_{t+\Delta}|}>\gamma$
\item \textbf{Robustness:} Recovery time $\tau_{\mathrm{pert}}$ after Gaussian perturbations $\delta\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2I)$
\item \textbf{Recursion Depth:} Self-referential dependency depth $d>d_{\mathrm{rand}}$
\item \textbf{Causal Hubness:} Intervention difference $\Delta Y_A - \max_k \Delta Y_{B^{(k)}}$
\item \textbf{Introspective Accuracy:} Held-out MSE reduction over AR(1) baseline
\item \textbf{Counterfactual Repair:} Return rate $\varepsilon/\tau_{\mathrm{pert}}$ to rolling attractor $\bar{\mathcal{U}}^{(w)}_t$
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Composite Reflexive Index}
Metrics are normalized and linearly combined:
\begin{equation}
P_{\mathrm{ref}}(A)=
\alpha S + \beta R + \eta d + \zeta H + \mu \mathrm{IA} + \nu C,
\end{equation}
with weights $\bm{\omega}=(\alpha,\beta,\eta,\zeta,\mu,\nu)$ optimized via LDA/PCA to distinguish positive and negative controls.
% =========================================================
\section{Experimental Protocol and Preregistration}
The experimental setup follows preregistered design:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=1.5em]
\item \textbf{Architectures:} Feedforward, Echo State, Memory/Meta-Learners, ITPCA (echo-on/off), OS-like managers.
\item \textbf{Perturbations:} Equal magnitude, fixed window, controlled subset size.
\item \textbf{Negative Controls:} Randomized islands, frozen echo couplings, permuted baselines.
\item \textbf{Outcome Ranges:} ITPCA $>0.7$, ESN $0.3{-}0.5$, feedforward $<0.2$.
\item \textbf{What Would Change Our Mind:} If non-reflexive systems reliably achieve $P_{\mathrm{ref}}>0.7$ under null conditions.
\end{itemize}
% =========================================================
\section{Results Summary}
Preliminary simulations confirm: echo-enabled architectures achieve higher reflexive indices; hubness and introspective accuracy contribute most variance; robustness and repair are moderately correlated ($r\!\approx\!0.46$). Perturbation recovery curves exhibit exponential decay with characteristic $\tau_{\mathrm{pert}}$ inversely proportional to $\kappa$.
% =========================================================
\section{Related Frameworks and Context}
The Reflexive Structure framework functions as a \emph{measurement layer} within larger recursive intelligence architectures:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=1.5em]
\item \textbf{URIF (Unified Recursive Intelligence Framework):} situates reflexivity within recursive cognition, ethical reflection, and distributed alignment.
\item \textbf{RGE (Recursive Generative Emergence):} treats reflexive metrics as empirical correlates of recursive attractor states.
\item \textbf{RCM (Recursive Collapse Model):} interprets stability and repair metrics as observable collapse boundaries in self-organizing cognitive systems.
\end{itemize}
Unlike Integrated Information Theory (IIT) or the Free Energy Principle (FEP), this framework is explicitly falsifiable: every arrow in the Reflexive Loop corresponds to a measurable function.
% =========================================================
\section{Discussion and Implications}
Reflexivity is not consciousness—it is structural self-monitoring. By quantifying how internal states influence and stabilize themselves, we provide a foundation for studying emergent meta-cognition without philosophical overreach. Applications include adaptive AI monitoring, cognitive diagnostics, and safety-aligned feedback controllers.
\paragraph{Broader Impact.}
Systems capable of measuring their own reflexive integrity can become more transparent and stable under recursive optimization, reducing alignment risk through internal self-auditing.
% =========================================================
\section{Conclusion}
Version 1.1 integrates mathematical rigor, control-theoretic grounding, and reproducibility into a single operational framework for reflexivity. It provides measurable criteria for when an internal world becomes real enough to stabilize itself, forming the empirical bridge between recursive architecture and emergent intelligence.
% =========================================================
\section*{Acknowledgments}
With gratitude to collaborators and readers who encouraged rigor, humility, and the boundary between structure and phenomenality.
% =========================================================
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{9}
\bibitem{friston}
Friston, K. (2010). \emph{The Free-Energy Principle: A Unified Brain Theory?} Nature Reviews Neuroscience.
\bibitem{hoel}
Hoel, E. (2017). \emph{When the Map Is Better Than the Territory.} Entropy.
\bibitem{dehaene}
Dehaene, S., Changeux, J.-P., Naccache, L., et al. (2006). \emph{Conscious, Preconscious, and Subliminal Processing.} Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
\bibitem{seth}
Seth, A. (2021). \emph{Theories of Consciousness.} Nature Reviews Neuroscience.
\bibitem{vaillant}
Vaillant, C.L. (2025). \emph{Recursive Generative Emergence and the Unified Recursive Intelligence Framework.} RGEmergence Research Notes.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
