skip to main content

Title: Non-perturbative renormalization for the neural network-QFT correspondence
Abstract

In a recent work (Halversonet al2021Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.2035002), Halverson, Maiti and Stoner proposed a description of neural networks (NNs) in terms of a Wilsonian effective field theory. The infinite-width limit is mapped to a free field theory while finiteNcorrections are taken into account by interactions (non-Gaussian terms in the action). In this paper, we study two related aspects of this correspondence. First, we comment on the concepts of locality and power-counting in this context. Indeed, these usual space-time notions may not hold for NNs (since inputs can be arbitrary), however, the renormalization group (RG) provides natural notions of locality and scaling. Moreover, we comment on several subtleties, for example, that data components may not have a permutation symmetry: in that case, we argue that random tensor field theories could provide a natural generalization. Second, we improve the perturbative Wilsonian renormalization from Halversonet al(2021Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.2035002) by providing an analysis in terms of the non-perturbative RG using the Wetterich-Morris equation. An important difference with usual non-perturbative RG analysis is that only the effective infrared 2-point function is known, which requires setting the problem with care. Our aim is to provide a useful formalism to investigate NNs behavior beyond more » the large-width limit (i.e. far from Gaussian limit) in a non-perturbative fashion. A major result of our analysis is that changing the standard deviation of the NN weight distribution can be interpreted as a renormalization flow in the space of networks. We focus on translations invariant kernels and provide preliminary numerical results.

« less
Authors:
; ;
Award ID(s):
2019786
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10363314
Journal Name:
Machine Learning: Science and Technology
Volume:
3
Issue:
1
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
Article No. 015027
ISSN:
2632-2153
Publisher:
IOP Publishing
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract

    The Dicke model—a paradigmatic example of superradiance in quantum optics—describes an ensemble of atoms which are collectively coupled to a leaky cavity mode. As a result of the cooperative nature of these interactions, the system’s dynamics is captured by the behavior of a single mean-field, collective spin. In this mean-field limit, it has recently been shown that the interplay between photon losses and periodic driving of light–matter coupling can lead to time-crystalline-like behavior of the collective spin (Gonget al2018Phys. Rev. Lett.120040404). In this work, we investigate whether such a Dicke time crystal (TC) is stable to perturbations that explicitly break the mean-field solvability of the conventional Dicke model. In particular, we consider the addition of short-range interactions between the atoms which breaks the collective coupling and leads to complex many-body dynamics. In this context, the interplay between periodic driving, dissipation and interactions yields a rich set of dynamical responses, including long-lived and metastable Dicke-TCs, where losses can cool down the many-body heating resulting from the continuous pump of energy from the periodic drive. Specifically, when the additional short-range interactions are ferromagnetic, we observe time crystalline behavior at non-perturbative values of the coupling strength, suggesting the possible existence of stablemore »dynamical order in a driven-dissipative quantum many-body system. These findings illustrate the rich nature of novel dynamical responses with many-body character in quantum optics platforms.

    « less
  2. Abstract

    The renormalization group (RG) is a class of theoretical techniques used to explain the collective physics of interacting, many-body systems. It has been suggested that the RG formalism may be useful in finding and interpreting emergent low-dimensional structure in complex systems outside of the traditional physics context, such as in biology or computer science. In such contexts, one common dimensionality-reduction framework already in use is information bottleneck (IB), in which the goal is to compress an ‘input’ signalXwhile maximizing its mutual information with some stochastic ‘relevance’ variableY. IB has been applied in the vertebrate and invertebrate processing systems to characterize optimal encoding of the future motion of the external world. Other recent work has shown that the RG scheme for the dimer model could be ‘discovered’ by a neural network attempting to solve an IB-like problem. This manuscript explores whether IB and any existing formulation of RG are formally equivalent. A class of soft-cutoff non-perturbative RG techniques are defined by families of non-deterministic coarsening maps, and hence can be formally mapped onto IB, and vice versa. For concreteness, this discussion is limited entirely to Gaussian statistics (GIB), for which IB has exact, closed-form solutions. Under this constraint, GIB hasmore »a semigroup structure, in which successive transformations remain IB-optimal. Further, the RG cutoff scheme associated with GIB can be identified. Our results suggest that IB can be used toimposea notion of ‘large scale’ structure, such as biological function, on an RG procedure.

    « less
  3. Abstract

    Physical systems with non-trivial topological order find direct applications in metrology (Klitzinget al1980Phys.Rev. Lett.45494–7) and promise future applications in quantum computing (Freedman 2001Found. Comput. Math.1183–204; Kitaev 2003Ann. Phys.3032–30). The quantum Hall effect derives from transverse conductance, quantized to unprecedented precision in accordance with the system’s topology (Laughlin 1981Phys. Rev.B235632–33). At magnetic fields beyond the reach of current condensed matter experiment, around104T, this conductance remains precisely quantized with values based on the topological order (Thoulesset al1982Phys. Rev. Lett.49405–8). Hitherto, quantized conductance has only been measured in extended 2D systems. Here, we experimentally studied narrow 2D ribbons, just 3 or 5 sites wide along one direction, using ultracold neutral atoms where such large magnetic fields can be engineered (Jaksch and Zoller 2003New J. Phys.556; Miyakeet al2013Phys. Rev. Lett.111185302; Aidelsburgeret al2013Phys. Rev. Lett.111185301; Celiet al2014Phys. Rev. Lett.112043001; Stuhlet al2015Science3491514; Manciniet al2015Science3491510; Anet al2017Sci. Adv.3). We microscopically imaged the transverse spatial motion underlying the quantized Hall effect. Our measurements identify the topological Chern numbers with typical uncertainty of5%, and show that although band topology is only properly defined in infinite systems, its signatures are striking even in nearly vanishingly thin systems.

  4. Abstract Due to its construction, the nonperturbative renormalizationgroup (RG) evolution of the constant, field-independent term (which is constantwith respect to field variations but depends on the RG scale k ) requiresspecial care within the Functional Renormalization Group (FRG) approach.In several instances, the constant term of the potential has nophysical meaning. However, there are special cases where it receives importantapplications. In low dimensions ( d = 1), in a quantum mechanical model, thisterm is associated with the ground-state energy of the anharmonic oscillator.In higher dimensions ( d = 4), it is identical to the Λ termof the Einstein equationsand it plays a role in cosmic inflation. Thus, instatistical field theory, in flat space, the constant term could be associatedwith the free energy, while in curved space, it could be naturally associatedwith the cosmological constant. It is known that one has to use a subtractionmethod for the quantum anharmonic oscillator in d = 1 to remove the k 2 term that appears in the RGflow in its high-energy (UV) limit in order to recover thecorrect results for the ground-state energy. The subtraction is needed becausethe Gaussian fixed point is missing in the RG flow once the constant term isincluded. However, if themore »Gaussian fixed point is there, no furthersubtraction is required. Here, we propose a subtraction method for k 4 and k 2 terms of the UV scaling of the RG equations for d = 4 dimensions if theGaussian fixed point is missing in the RG flow with the constant term. Finally,comments on the application of our results to cosmological models are provided.« less
  5. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEGmore »channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.« less