Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
2000 character limit reached

Parametric Matrix Models

Published 22 Jan 2024 in cs.LG, cond-mat.dis-nn, nucl-th, physics.comp-ph, and quant-ph | (2401.11694v6)

Abstract: We present a general class of machine learning algorithms called parametric matrix models. In contrast with most existing machine learning models that imitate the biology of neurons, parametric matrix models use matrix equations that emulate physical systems. Similar to how physics problems are usually solved, parametric matrix models learn the governing equations that lead to the desired outputs. Parametric matrix models can be efficiently trained from empirical data, and the equations may use algebraic, differential, or integral relations. While originally designed for scientific computing, we prove that parametric matrix models are universal function approximators that can be applied to general machine learning problems. After introducing the underlying theory, we apply parametric matrix models to a series of different challenges that show their performance for a wide range of problems. For all the challenges tested here, parametric matrix models produce accurate results within an efficient and interpretable computational framework that allows for input feature extrapolation.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (64)
  1. Neural ordinary differential equations. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018.
  2. Deep equilibrium models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019.
  3. Equilibrated recurrent neural network: Neuronal time-delayed self-feedback improves accuracy and stability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00755, 2019.
  4. RNNs evolving on an equilibrium manifold: A panacea for vanishing and exploding gradients? arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08574, 2019.
  5. Fenchel lifted networks: A lagrange relaxation of neural network training. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 3362–3371. PMLR, 2020.
  6. Implicit deep learning. SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 3(3):930–958, 2021.
  7. Reduced basis methods for partial differential equations: an introduction, volume 92. Springer, 2015.
  8. Certified Reduced Basis Methods for Parametrized Partial Differential Equations. SpringerBriefs in Mathematics. Springer International Publishing, 2016.
  9. Peter J. Schmid. Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 656:5–28, 2010.
  10. Jonathan H Tu. Dynamic mode decomposition: Theory and applications. PhD thesis, Princeton University, 2013.
  11. Dynamic mode decomposition with control. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 15(1):142–161, 2016.
  12. Dynamic mode decomposition: data-driven modeling of complex systems. SIAM, 2016.
  13. Algorithms for non-negative matrix factorization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 13, 2000.
  14. Nonnegative matrix factorization: A comprehensive review. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 25(6):1336–1353, 2012.
  15. Lawrence K Saul. A geometrical connection between sparse and low-rank matrices and its application to manifold learning. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022.
  16. Eigenvector continuation with subspace learning. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121:032501, Jul 2018.
  17. Improved many-body expansions from eigenvector continuation. Phys. Rev. C, 101(4):041302, 2020.
  18. Eigenvector Continuation as an Efficient and Accurate Emulator for Uncertainty Quantification. Phys. Lett. B, 810:135814, 2020.
  19. Global sensitivity analysis of bulk properties of an atomic nucleus. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123(25):252501, 2019.
  20. Efficient emulators for scattering using eigenvector continuation. Phys. Lett. B, 809:135719, 2020.
  21. Convergence of Eigenvector Continuation. Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(3):032501, 2021.
  22. Eigenvector Continuation and Projection-Based Emulators. 10 2023.
  23. Trimmed sampling algorithm for the noisy generalized eigenvalue problem. Phys. Rev. Res., 5(2):L022001, 2023.
  24. Optimization. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2006.
  25. R McWeeny and Charles Alfred Coulson. Quantum mechanics of the anharmonic oscillator. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, volume 44, pages 413–422. Cambridge University Press, 1948.
  26. The anharmonic oscillator. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 360(1703):575–586, 1978.
  27. Operator method in the problem of quantum anharmonic oscillator. Annals of physics, 238(2):370–440, 1995.
  28. Multiple-scale analysis of the quantum anharmonic oscillator. Physical review letters, 77(20):4114, 1996.
  29. Calculation of energy eigenvalues for the quantum anharmonic oscillator with a polynomial potential. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 35(1):87, 2001.
  30. Excited states from eigenvector continuation: The anharmonic oscillator. Physics Letters B, 830:137101, 2022.
  31. Anharmonic oscillator. Phys. Rev., 184:1231–1260, Aug 1969.
  32. Deep Learning. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2016.
  33. J. Stoer and R. Bulirsch. Introduction to Numerical Analysis. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.
  34. Tosio Kato. Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators. 1966.
  35. The bitter truth about gate-based quantum algorithms in the nisq era. Quantum Science and Technology, 5(4):044007, 2020.
  36. A. Yu. Kitaev. Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, 3, 1995.
  37. Simulation of many body Fermi systems on a universal quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett., 79:2586–2589, 1997.
  38. Optimal quantum phase estimation. Phys. Rev. Lett., 102(4):040403, 2009.
  39. Faster Phase Estimation. 4 2013.
  40. Rodeo Algorithm for Quantum Computing. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127(4):040505, 2021.
  41. Accessing ground-state and excited-state energies in a many-body system after symmetry restoration using quantum computers. Phys. Rev. C, 105(2):024324, 2022.
  42. Demonstration of the Rodeo Algorithm on a Quantum Computer. 10 2021.
  43. Rodeo Algorithm with Controlled Reversal Gates. 8 2022.
  44. Optimizing the rodeo projection algorithm. Phys. Rev. A, 108(3):032422, 2023.
  45. Hale F Trotter. On the product of semi-groups of operators. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 10(4):545–551, 1959.
  46. Masuo Suzuki. Generalized Trotter’s formula and systematic approximants of exponential operators and inner derivations with applications to many-body problems. Comm. Math. Phys., 51(2):183–190, June 1976.
  47. Masuo Suzuki. General decomposition theory of ordered exponentials. Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B, 69(7):161–166, 1993.
  48. Theory of Trotter error with commutator scaling. Physical Review X, 11(1):011020, 2021.
  49. Mitigating algorithmic errors in a hamiltonian simulation. Phys. Rev. A, 99:012334, Jan 2019.
  50. Enhancing the quantum linear systems algorithm using richardson extrapolation. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 3(1):1–37, 2022.
  51. Improved Accuracy for Trotter Simulations Using Chebyshev Interpolation. 12 2022.
  52. Improved error scaling for Trotter simulations through extrapolation, 2023.
  53. Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Viualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:2579–2605, 11 2008.
  54. Laurens van der Maaten. Learning a parametric embedding by preserving local structure. Journal of Machine Learning Research - Proceedings Track, 5:384–391, 01 2009.
  55. Neighbourhood components analysis. In L. Saul, Y. Weiss, and L. Bottou, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 17. MIT Press, 2004.
  56. Laurens van der Maaten. Accelerating t-SNE using tree-based algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(93):3221–3245, 2014.
  57. The large n behaviour of the lipkin model and exceptional points. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 38(9):1843, feb 2005.
  58. W D Heiss. The physics of exceptional points. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 45(44):444016, oct 2012.
  59. I. Dzyaloshinsky. A thermodynamic theory of “weak” ferromagnetism of antiferromagnetics. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids, 4(4):241–255, 1958.
  60. Tôru Moriya. Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism. Physical review, 120(1):91, 1960.
  61. Entanglement transmission due to the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction. Scientific Reports, 13(1):2932, 2023.
  62. Quantum coherence of the Heisenberg spin models with Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya interactions. Scientific Reports, 7(1):13865, 2017.
  63. Quantum entanglement in Heisenberg model with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism, 36(3):957–964, 2023.
  64. Matrix product state representations. Quantum Info. Comput., 7(5):401–430, jul 2007.
Citations (2)

Summary

  • The paper introduces innovative PMMs that use matrix equations and reduced basis methods to approximate solutions for complex parametric systems.
  • The paper demonstrates superior performance in tasks like quantum anharmonic oscillators and Trotter extrapolation, outperforming conventional methods.
  • The paper validates PMMs in unsupervised image clustering with minimal hyperparameter tuning, highlighting their versatility in scientific computing and machine learning.

Analysis of "Parametric Matrix Models"

The paper, "Parametric Matrix Models," presents a novel class of machine learning algorithms termed Parametric Matrix Models (PMMs). These models are rooted in the use of matrix equations and are influenced by the principles of reduced basis methods, which are effective in approximating solutions of parametric equations. The PMMs exhibit flexibility by accommodating dependent variables defined either explicitly or implicitly through algebraic, differential, or integral relations. Notably, PMMs can be trained using empirical data without reliance on high-fidelity model calculations, making them versatile tools across various machine learning tasks.

Essential Characteristics of PMMs

PMMs are characterized by their underlying mathematical structure, which allows them to be universal function approximators. They leverage the efficiency of reduced basis methods while being applicable to various machine learning challenges. The authors highlight the capacity of PMMs to incorporate mathematical and scientific insights into their design, which in turn reduces the need for extensive hyperparameter tuning compared to other machine learning models. This characteristic does not compromise their generality or adaptability, but rather focuses on producing simpler analytical properties suitable for extrapolation into complex domains.

Benchmarking and Numerical Validation

The authors deploy PMMs across several distinct scientific computing and machine learning challenges to demonstrate their versatility:

  1. Quantum Anharmonic Oscillator: The PMMs effectively capture the lowest two energy levels of the quantum anharmonic oscillator as a function of the parameter gg, outperforming traditional methods like multilayer perceptrons and cubic spline interpolation. This demonstrates the model's proficiency in dealing with complex systems exhibiting phase transitions or singularities.
  2. Trotter Extrapolation in Quantum Computing: PMMs facilitate extrapolation to zero step size for Trotter approximations, applicable to determining energy levels in quantum phase estimation tasks. They exhibit superior performance over polynomial interpolation methods, particularly around sharp avoided level crossings, illustrating their potential in optimizing quantum resources.
  3. Unsupervised Image Clustering: This study extends PMMs beyond scientific computing to unsupervised clustering of the MNIST dataset. Despite the absence of preprocessing typically necessary in t-SNE-based methods, PMMs effectively cluster handwritten digits, showcasing their robust parametric embedding capabilities compared to more complex and finely-tuned neural network methods.

Implications and Future Prospects

The paper suggests that PMMs are poised to address a broad spectrum of problems by gracefully integrating empirically-derived data and mathematical theory. The PMMs’ ability to learn observables from eigenvectors and extrapolate into complex domains without explicit model data could revolutionize tasks in areas requiring efficient computation and interpolation of multifaceted datasets.

Theoretical exploration of how PMMs can accommodate additional constraints or modified structures to enhance performance on specific tasks would be a valuable direction for future research. Moreover, the advancement of PMMs in larger datasets and real-world applications could highlight their comparative advantages over traditional models.

In conclusion, Parametric Matrix Models present a promising advancement in the domain of machine learning, blending theoretical insights with computational efficacy. They offer a compelling alternative to existing models, particularly in applications necessitating robust extrapolation and interpretability under constraints of limited training data.

Whiteboard

Paper to Video (Beta)

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 4 tweets with 1 like about this paper.

HackerNews

  1. Parametric Matrix Models (66 points, 7 comments)