Interpolation Is Not Invariance: Pair Count Is Not Coverage in Transformation Audits

תקציר מקורי באנגליתarXiv:2609.14870v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Counting equivalent pairs is a common way to report transformation-audit coverage, but it can substantially overstate the constraints imposed by an audit: pairs generated from the same semantic object are correlated, and complete orbit graphs contain algebraically redundant edges. We therefore distinguish four complementary quantities---edge count $m$, effective contrast rank $s$, population support rank $r$, and graph spectral gap $\eta$---and characterize their roles in audit coverage and deployment reliability. Under a rank-$r$ Gaussian contrast model, a population-invariant calibrated reader exists exactly when the anchor has a component in $\ker T$. When an audit has rank $s < r$, its unobserved risk is $R^\star/U$, with $U \sim \opera