The Matching Principle: A Geometric Theory of Loss Functions for Nuisance-Robust Representation Learning

arXiv:2605.22800v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Robustness, domain adaptation, photometric/occlusion invariance, sensor drift, and alignment style are treated as separate literatures with separate method families. Under label-preserving deployment shift they share one geometric object: the covariance Sigma_task = Cov_Q_n(n) of ways inputs can change without changing the label. CORAL, adversarial training, augmentation, metric learning, Jacobian penalties, and alignment constraints are not independent tricks–they are estimators of Sigma_task. Fix that object and the Jacobian penalty is pinned by a matrix Sigma’ whose range must cover range(Sigma_task)–the matching principle. We prove optimality in a linear-Gaussian model (Thm. A), necessity of range coverage for any quadratic penalty that zeros deployment drift (Thm. G), and the same dichotomy at global minima (Thm. A*_global). Wrong-direction/signal-aligned controls (Lemma C; Cor. E/E*) and seven estimators (Lemmas D1–D7), plus label-free TDI, yield a falsifiable recipe when Sigma_task must be learned. Thirteen blocks (ML through Qwen2.5-7B) test matched vs isotropic vs wrong-direction penalties on geometry and deployment drift. Twelve match theory where identifiability holds; Office-31 is a named eigengap failure. Partial passes: geometry can improve without every headline task metric moving. A pilot 7B DPO run (one epoch, 240 pairs): matched style-PMH preserves Style TDI where standard DPO degrades it. We do not claim standard training reaches global minima (assumption (O) is open), that estimated Sigma_task is always identifiable, or dominance on every leaderboard. We claim a falsifiable design recipe: estimate Sigma_task, match Sigma’, run the controls, report task and geometry separately.