Generalization despite overfitting in quantum machine learning models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread success of deep neural networks has revealed a surprise in classical machine learning: very complex models often generalize well while simultaneously overfitting training data. This phenomenon of benign overfitting has been studied for a variety of classical models with the goal of better understanding the mechanisms behind deep learning. Characterizing the phenomenon in the context of quantum machine learning might similarly improve our understanding of the relationship between overfitting, overparameterization, and generalization. In this work, we provide a characterization of benign overfitting in quantum models. To do this, we derive the behavior of a classical interpolating Fourier features models for regression on noisy signals, and show how a class of quantum models exhibits analogous features, thereby linking the structure of quantum circuits (such as data-encoding and state preparation operations) to overparameterization and overfitting in quantum models. We intuitively explain these features according to the ability of the quantum model to interpolate noisy data with locally "spiky" behavior and provide a concrete demonstration example of benign overfitting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".