by anima-core | 2025-12-10 17:27:27+00:00
Thank you for the thoughtful comments. Really. This is actually the most constructive feedback in the thread so far.

A few clarifications.

1. On the LaTeX citations and figure references That part is definitely on me. I never used LaTeX before this project and moved extremely fast. There's a lot of weird mumbo jumbo going on with formatting and converting it to a pdf. That part isnt interesting to me, and I try to move passed it quickly. I did use AI tools for typesetting help, and I clearly didn’t clean up all the placeholder references. Entirely my mistake, not an attempt to fabricate sources. I’ll fix the citations and figure links in the next revision so they meet normal academic standards.

2. Architecture transparency and reproducibility The open-source repo contains every component used for the scientific claim:

extraction of activation fields

rank reduction

probing

training the student model

running inference with the student alone

The proprietary references in the paper refer only to optimization layers (CUDA kernels, scheduler heuristics, etc.) that aren’t required for the scientific result. They're not hand wavey secret parts of the method. Just production-grade accelerations I’m still packaging separately for licensing.

The core idea—extract, compress, probe, distill—is fully reproduced in the repo.

3. “Secret sauce” concern There actually isn’t any. The paper may read like I’m hinting at hidden architecture, but the method is intentionally simple. The novelty is in how much task-relevant geometry survives after severe rank reduction, not in a complex architecture. The “anchor layers” are just early and mid-layer activations concatenated before compression.

4. Baseline comparisons Good point on comparing to:

1. a standard small transformer of the same size

2. a distillation from a single layer’s activations

I do have partial results for both, and you’re right that including them would sharpen the contribution. I’ll incorporate them into the revised version.

5. Writing clarity and background Fair critique. I wrote this at the same time I was building the entire stack, which means the prose lagged behind the experiments. I can expand failure modes, limitations, and benchmark context to make the narrative clearer.

6. On the term “meaning field” Naming is tricky, and I thought that captured everything im working on pretty effectively. Also, I think it will make more sense when you see everything im releasing in the near future. I used it because I felt as if it captures the intuition behind low-rank activation structure, but I’m not attached to the term. “Compressed activation representation” is probably clearer for a paper audience. I’ll adjust based on reviewer expectations.

7. Correct summary of the method Your restatement is close, but not quite it. The student isn’t trained to reconstruct specific layers, but to match the compressed field extracted from multiple layers. It’s not a smaller transformer trying to imitate concatenated layers, but a model trying to predict a learned low-dimensional latent that carries most of the task-relevant signal.

All of your points are duly noted, and they will help me to adapt, grow, and mature my work and future releases.

Thank you, sincerely. This is the kind of feedback that actually improves me and the work aswell.