On the Sample Complexity of Learning Sum-Product Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sum-Product Networks (SPNs) can be regarded as a form of deep graphical models that compactly represent deeply factored and mixed distributions. An SPN is a rooted directed acyclic graph (DAG) consisting of a set of leaves (corresponding to base distributions), a set of sum nodes (which represent mixtures of their children distributions) and a set of product nodes (representing the products of its children distributions). In this work, we initiate the study of the sample complexity of PAC-learning the set of distributions that correspond to SPNs. We show that the sample complexity of learning tree structured SPNs with the usual type of leaves (i.e., Gaussian or discrete) grows at most linearly (up to logarithmic factors) with the number of parameters of the SPN. More specifically, we show that the class of distributions that corresponds to tree structured Gaussian SPNs with $k$ mixing weights and $e$ ($d$-dimensional Gaussian) leaves can be learned within Total Variation error $ε$ using at most $\widetilde{O}(\frac{ed^2+k}{ε^2})$ samples. A similar result holds for tree structured SPNs with discrete leaves. We obtain the upper bounds based on the recently proposed notion of distribution compression schemes. More specifically, we show that if a (base) class of distributions $\mathcal{F}$ admits an "efficient" compression, then the class of tree structured SPNs with leaves from $\mathcal{F}$ also admits an efficient compression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".