Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we show that neural networks can be represented via the mathematical theory of quiver representations. More specifically, we prove that a neural network is a quiver representation with activation functions, a mathematical object that we represent using a network quiver. Furthermore, we show that network quivers gently adapt to common neural network concepts such as fully connected layers, convolution operations, residual connections, batch normalization, pooling operations and even randomly wired neural networks. We show that this mathematical representation is by no means an approximation of what neural networks are as it exactly matches reality. This interpretation is algebraic and can be studied with algebraic methods. We also provide a quiver representation model to understand how a neural network creates representations from the data. We show that a neural network saves the data as quiver representations, and maps it to a geometrical space called the moduli space, which is given in terms of the underlying oriented graph of the network, i.e., its quiver. This results as a consequence of our defined objects and of understanding how the neural network computes a prediction in a combinatorial and algebraic way. Overall, representing neural networks through the quiver representation theory leads to 9 consequences and 4 inquiries for future research that we believe are of great interest to better understand what neural networks are and how they work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".