Lower and Upper Bounds on the VC-Dimension of Tensor Network Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tensor network methods have been a key ingredient of advances in condensed matter physics and have recently sparked interest in the machine learning community for their ability to compactly represent very high-dimensional objects. Tensor network methods can for example be used to efficiently learn linear models in exponentially large feature spaces [Stoudenmire and Schwab, 2016]. In this work, we derive upper and lower bounds on the VC dimension and pseudo-dimension of a large class of tensor network models for classification, regression and completion. Our upper bounds hold for linear models parameterized by arbitrary tensor network structures, and we derive lower bounds for common tensor decomposition models~(CP, Tensor Train, Tensor Ring and Tucker) showing the tightness of our general upper bound. These results are used to derive a generalization bound which can be applied to classification with low rank matrices as well as linear classifiers based on any of the commonly used tensor decomposition models. As a corollary of our results, we obtain a bound on the VC dimension of the matrix product state classifier introduced in [Stoudenmire and Schwab, 2016] as a function of the so-called bond dimension~(i.e. tensor train rank), which answers an open problem listed by Cirac, Garre-Rubio and Pérez-García in [Cirac et al., 2019].
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".