Neural Fields as Distributions: Signal Processing Beyond Euclidean Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural fields have emerged as a powerful and broadly applicable method for representing signals. However, in contrast to classical discrete digital signal processing, the portfolio of tools to process such representations is still severely limited and restricted to Euclidean domains. In this paper, we address this problem by showing how a prob-abilistic re-interpretation of neural fields can enable their training and inference processes to become “filter-aware”. The formulation we propose not only merges training and filtering in an efficient way, but also generalizes beyond the familiar Euclidean coordinate spaces to the more general set of smooth manifolds and convolutions induced by the actions of Lie groups. We demonstrate how this framework can enable novel integrations of signal processing techniques for neural field applications on both Euclidean do-mains, such as images and audio, as well as non-Euclidean domains, such as rotations and rays. A noteworthy benefit of our method is its applicability. Our method can be sum-marized as primarily a modification of the loss function, and in most cases does not require changes to the network ar-chitecture or the inference process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".