|
| 1 | +{ |
| 2 | + "_meta": { |
| 3 | + "type": "CODAWORK_2026_PRESENTATION_OUTLINE", |
| 4 | + "version": "2.0", |
| 5 | + "created": "2026-04-19", |
| 6 | + "author": "Peter Higgins / Claude (Anthropic)", |
| 7 | + "purpose": "Revised CoDaWork 2026 presentation outline. CoDa-first approach: geometric mean proof as the lead, CoDa bridges as the body, system of systems as the depth. Strategy only — final format TBD after ChatGPT verification review.", |
| 8 | + "conference": "11th International Workshop on Compositional Data Analysis (CoDaWork 2026)", |
| 9 | + "dates": "1–5 June 2026", |
| 10 | + "location": "Coimbra, Portugal", |
| 11 | + "submitted_abstract_page": 25, |
| 12 | + "submitted_title": "Compositional monitoring of energy-mix drift on the simplex", |
| 13 | + "revision_note": "v2.0 pivots from 'energy monitoring with a CoDa seed' to 'CoDa contribution with energy as the flagship domain'. The geometric mean proof is now the headline. All terminology updated to CIP (not PLL), HCDT, correct EITT expansion." |
| 14 | + }, |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | + "core_message": { |
| 17 | + "one_sentence": "The EITT provides the first empirical measurement of the information cost of arithmetic averaging on the simplex — proving the CoDa community's 40-year insistence on geometric mean is not theoretical preference but empirical necessity.", |
| 18 | + "elevator_pitch": "We built a temporal diagnostic using standard CoDa tools. It shows that geometric-mean aggregation preserves 99.82% of compositional signal across 341:1 compression, while arithmetic mean destroys 20–40%. We tested it on 75 systems across 44 orders of magnitude. The simplex is the same everywhere.", |
| 19 | + "falsifiable_claim": "No existing monitoring framework performs compositional change detection at the carrier level with formal perturbation-based drift measurement." |
| 20 | + }, |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | + "presentation_structure": { |
| 23 | + "_note": "7-beat narrative arc. Target: 15-minute talk. Each beat maps to ~2 minutes.", |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | + "beat_1_the_problem": { |
| 26 | + "duration": "2 minutes", |
| 27 | + "title": "The Arithmetic Problem", |
| 28 | + "content": "Compositional time series are everywhere. Energy agencies, geochemistry labs, epidemiologists — they all average compositions arithmetically. The CoDa community has argued for 40 years that this is wrong. But nobody has measured the cost.", |
| 29 | + "visual": "Side-by-side: geometric vs arithmetic average of energy mix data. Show the compositions diverging.", |
| 30 | + "coda_connection": "Ground this in Aitchison (1982): 'the geometric mean is the natural average on the simplex'. Cite Pawlowsky-Glahn et al. (2015). Start by crediting the community." |
| 31 | + }, |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | + "beat_2_the_tool": { |
| 34 | + "duration": "2 minutes", |
| 35 | + "title": "The Entropy-Invariant Time Transformer", |
| 36 | + "content": "Define EITT: Shannon entropy of compositional data measured at multiple temporal resolutions under geometric-mean decimation (the Aitchison barycenter). The invariance — or its absence — quantifies whether temporal aggregation preserves compositional structure.", |
| 37 | + "formula": "x̄_G = C(∏ₜ x(t)^(1/k)) — the Aitchison barycenter. H(x̄_G) ≈ H(x) when the simplex geometry is respected.", |
| 38 | + "visual": "The Higgins Decomposition 10-step pipeline diagram. Emphasise: every step uses standard CoDa tools.", |
| 39 | + "coda_connection": "CLR transform (Step 3), Aitchison variance (Step 4), geometric-mean decimation (Step 6) — all standard CoDa. The novelty is assembling them into a temporal diagnostic." |
| 40 | + }, |
| 41 | + |
| 42 | + "beat_3_the_proof": { |
| 43 | + "duration": "3 minutes (longest beat — the headline)", |
| 44 | + "title": "The Geometric Mean Proof", |
| 45 | + "content": "Present the numbers. European daily electricity prices: 0.18% entropy variation at 341:1 compression (geometric). NGFS Phase 4 scenarios: geometric 5yr 1.8% vs arithmetic 5yr 14.2%. Geometric 10yr 2.3% vs arithmetic 10yr 21.7%. Up to 41% destruction at arithmetic 10yr.", |
| 46 | + "key_numbers": { |
| 47 | + "geometric_341_to_1": "0.18%", |
| 48 | + "geometric_5yr": "1.8%", |
| 49 | + "geometric_10yr": "2.3%", |
| 50 | + "arithmetic_5yr": "14.2%", |
| 51 | + "arithmetic_10yr": "21.7%", |
| 52 | + "ratio": "Arithmetic destroys ~10× more signal than geometric at every scale" |
| 53 | + }, |
| 54 | + "visual": "Bar chart: geometric vs arithmetic entropy variation side by side, across compression levels. The geometric bars are barely visible; the arithmetic bars are massive.", |
| 55 | + "coda_connection": "This is the empirical ammunition. Aitchison was right. Pawlowsky-Glahn was right. Now there's a number." |
| 56 | + }, |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | + "beat_4_drift_detection": { |
| 59 | + "duration": "2 minutes", |
| 60 | + "title": "Perturbation-Based Drift Detection", |
| 61 | + "content": "Show the EMBER energy monitoring results. Germany: nuclear shutdown flagged at dₐ=9.07 (2023–2024). Japan: Fukushima aftermath flagged at dₐ=9.05 (2013–2014, NOT 2011–2012 — the annual resolution matters). UK: three distinct drift events over 25 years. Each flag has a known physical cause.", |
| 62 | + "formula": "Drift flag when dₐ(t→t+1) > μ + 2σ — self-calibrated per country.", |
| 63 | + "visual": "Aitchison distance time series for Germany, Japan, UK with drift flags marked and annotated with causes.", |
| 64 | + "coda_connection": "Perturbation difference is Aitchison (1986). Drift detection via Aitchison distance is standard CoDa. The contribution is applying it to real-world policy data with interpretable results." |
| 65 | + }, |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | + "beat_5_geochemistry_validation": { |
| 68 | + "duration": "2 minutes", |
| 69 | + "title": "Validation in CoDa's Home Territory", |
| 70 | + "content": "40,666 real igneous rock samples. 8 major oxides. 37 of 39 TAS rock types pass EITT. Foidite fails at PR=32% — legitimate boundary condition (deep mantle phase chaos destroys temporal autocorrelation). The variation matrix identifies SiO₂/MgO as the dominant driver, matching known petrology.", |
| 71 | + "visual": "Pass rate by TAS type. Highlight Foidite as the informative failure.", |
| 72 | + "coda_connection": "Geochemistry IS CoDa. Aitchison himself used rock compositions. This validates EITT in the community's own backyard. The Foidite failure defines a boundary condition the community should find scientifically interesting." |
| 73 | + }, |
| 74 | + |
| 75 | + "beat_6_the_vertex_theorem": { |
| 76 | + "duration": "2 minutes", |
| 77 | + "title": "A New Dynamic on the Simplex", |
| 78 | + "content": "The Vertex Theorem: d(σ²_A)/dt = (2/D)Σ clr_i · clr_i' = 0 at dynamic equilibrium, where clr(t*) ⊥ clr'(t*). This is an exact identity from the chain rule applied to Aitchison variance. It gives a dynamic equilibrium condition — the point where composition restructures but stress is stationary. Tested on 30 domains: 28 show parabolic structure with R² > 0.6.", |
| 79 | + "formula": "d(σ²_A)/dt = (2/D)(clr · clr') = 0 ⟺ clr(t*) ⊥ clr'(t*)", |
| 80 | + "visual": "σ²_A trajectory with parabola fit for 3–4 domains (room acoustics R²=0.998, energy, geochemistry, stellar nucleosynthesis). Show the vertex as the lock point.", |
| 81 | + "coda_connection": "This is a CoDa dynamics result. CoDa has been mostly static (cross-sectional). The Vertex Theorem extends it to temporal analysis using existing tools (CLR, σ²_A). CoDa scientists will immediately understand the CLR orthogonality condition." |
| 82 | + }, |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | + "beat_7_what_this_means": { |
| 85 | + "duration": "2 minutes", |
| 86 | + "title": "What This Means for CoDa", |
| 87 | + "content": "Summary: (1) Geometric mean proof — empirical ammunition for the community. (2) Temporal extension — EITT + Vertex Theorem take CoDa from static to dynamic. (3) New domains — nuclear physics, particle physics, gravitational waves. 75 systems, 44 orders of magnitude. (4) Operational chain — the Higgins Decomposition, 10 steps, all standard CoDa tools. The Compositional Integrity Protocol (CIP) — 6 rules — keeps it clean.", |
| 88 | + "visual": "System-of-systems map showing the 12 experiments across the scale range. Simple version — just domain names and scale, no internal jargon.", |
| 89 | + "coda_connection": "End where you started: CoDa tools work. They work in time. They work across domains. The simplex is the same everywhere. And now we can measure the cost of ignoring it.", |
| 90 | + "open_question": "For the community — what other temporal compositional datasets would benefit from this analysis? (Invite collaboration.)" |
| 91 | + } |
| 92 | + }, |
| 93 | + |
| 94 | + "strategic_neighbours": { |
| 95 | + "_note": "Other CoDaWork 2026 presenters whose work connects to ours. Potential allies.", |
| 96 | + "Narayana_p29": { |
| 97 | + "title": "COPD microbiome perturbation", |
| 98 | + "connection": "Closest methodological ally — perturbation-based analysis of compositional time series in biology", |
| 99 | + "bridge": "Our drift detection maps directly to their disease progression monitoring" |
| 100 | + }, |
| 101 | + "Ascari_p9": { |
| 102 | + "title": "Energy-mix clustering with zeros", |
| 103 | + "connection": "Same domain (energy mix), complementary approach (clustering vs temporal monitoring)", |
| 104 | + "bridge": "Their zero-handling technique could address our multiplicative delta zero replacement" |
| 105 | + }, |
| 106 | + "Vega_Baquero_p57": { |
| 107 | + "title": "Portfolio allocation as composition", |
| 108 | + "connection": "Financial compositions — portfolio rebalancing is the same temporal problem as energy transition", |
| 109 | + "bridge": "Best EITT bridge — financial data would be a compelling fourth flagship domain" |
| 110 | + }, |
| 111 | + "Kanjiradan_Veetil_p26": { |
| 112 | + "title": "Cancer mortality time series — VAR forecasting", |
| 113 | + "connection": "Compositional time series in health data — needs drift detection", |
| 114 | + "bridge": "Our temporal tools could extend their VAR approach with CoDa-native change detection" |
| 115 | + } |
| 116 | + }, |
| 117 | + |
| 118 | + "what_to_avoid": { |
| 119 | + "terminology_traps": [ |
| 120 | + "Do NOT say 'PLL' to a CoDa audience — they will hear 'Phase-Locked Loop' and be confused about the engineering context. Say 'σ²_A parabola' or 'compositional stress trajectory'.", |
| 121 | + "Do NOT use 'HCDT' — CoDa people won't know it. Describe the toolkit by its components.", |
| 122 | + "Do NOT use 'DADC/DADI/ADAC' — these are acoustic engineering heritage terms. Say 'contamination analysis' or 'residual decomposition'.", |
| 123 | + "Do NOT use 'BTL' or 'Rogue Wave Audio' — engineering origin story is not relevant to CoDa.", |
| 124 | + "Do NOT use 'HUF-GOV' or 'open-loop doctrine' — governance concepts are internal to HUF.", |
| 125 | + "DO use: CLR, σ²_A, Aitchison distance, perturbation, simplex, closure, log-ratio, geometric mean, Shannon entropy — all CoDa/information theory native terms.", |
| 126 | + "DO use: CIP (Compositional Integrity Protocol) — it's new but the concept (analysis rules) is clear." |
| 127 | + ], |
| 128 | + "content_traps": [ |
| 129 | + "Do NOT lead with quantum analogies — the Bell test will make CoDa scientists suspicious of overclaiming", |
| 130 | + "Do NOT present the nuclear staircase — it's exploratory and CoDa-irrelevant", |
| 131 | + "Do NOT present dark matter or gravitational wave results as the lead — they are depth, not headline", |
| 132 | + "Do NOT claim universality — say 'tested across 75 systems' not 'proven universal'", |
| 133 | + "Do NOT present the 93% bound as a theorem — it's an observed pattern (L1)", |
| 134 | + "DO acknowledge failures honestly — Foidite PR=32%, Estonia 8.43%, adversarial boundary at temporal autocorrelation", |
| 135 | + "DO present the Contamination Doctrine — 'prefer a weaker but cleaner claim over a stronger contaminated one'. CoDa scientists will respect this." |
| 136 | + ] |
| 137 | + }, |
| 138 | + |
| 139 | + "depth_available_on_request": { |
| 140 | + "_note": "If someone asks 'have you tested this beyond energy and geochemistry?', this is the depth you can reveal.", |
| 141 | + "nuclear_physics": "SEMF binding energy as 4-part composition. 3,554 nuclides. Shell effects detected via σ²_A perturbations.", |
| 142 | + "particle_physics": "CKM and PMNS mixing matrices as simplex compositions. QGP freeze-out: EITT at 0.27% across the nuclear-quark phase boundary.", |
| 143 | + "gravitational_waves": "GW150914 mass budget as 4-part composition. Lowest entropy in all 75 systems (H/Hmax=0.175).", |
| 144 | + "full_inventory": "75 systems, 44 orders of magnitude, 12 experiments, 100% coverage. The Higgins Decomposition applied uniformly to every system." |
| 145 | + }, |
| 146 | + |
| 147 | + "maps_to_system_of_systems": { |
| 148 | + "_note": "How the CoDa presentation maps to the internal HUF system. For Peter's reference.", |
| 149 | + "beat_1": "Background — CoDa community context", |
| 150 | + "beat_2": "EITT definition — maps to FAST_REFRESH canonical_names.EITT", |
| 151 | + "beat_3": "Geometric mean proof — maps to FAST_REFRESH geometric_mean_empirical_proof", |
| 152 | + "beat_4": "EMBER results — maps to EXP-01, EXP-02, FAST_REFRESH ember_monitoring", |
| 153 | + "beat_5": "Geochemistry — maps to EXP-05, EXP-05b", |
| 154 | + "beat_6": "Vertex Theorem — maps to FAST_REFRESH pll_parabola_discovery.vertex_theorem", |
| 155 | + "beat_7": "System of systems — maps to FAST_REFRESH experiment_chain" |
| 156 | + } |
| 157 | +} |
0 commit comments