What Neural Network Field Theory Can and Cannot Realise on a Computer

arXiv:2608.21523v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: One aim of neural network field theory is to put a quantum or effective field theory on a computer, with the network ensemble itself as the theory. We ask how far that aim can be pushed for a function class regular enough to be computed with. Our main result is a no-go theorem with assumptions that hold for standard network architectures. We use it to separate four versions of neural network field theory, according to whether the defining object is the finite width ensemble or its infinite width limit, and whether the target we want to compute is a quantum or an effective field theory. Neither finite width interpretation is straightforwardly consistent. For finite width ensembles with finite variance at each point, the QFT interpretation fails reflection positivity, while the EFT interpretation establishes no scale separation by which the positivity violation can be placed outside its domain of validity. Of the two limit versions, one can be simulated in full and the other only in part, as only its smeared correlators are computable with a controlled error. As such, at the level of a controlled numerical computation, the QFT and EFT versions cannot be distinguished. One dimension escapes the obstruction, yet reflection positivity is shown to still fail there at every finite width for the cosine network. Two escapes from the theorem remain, giving up either finite variance at a point or exact rotation invariance, and we discuss both of these possibilities.

Abstract:One aim of neural network field theory is to put a quantum or effective field theory on a computer, with the network ensemble itself as the theory. We ask how far that aim can be pushed for a function class regular enough to be computed with. Our main result is a no-go theorem with assumptions that hold for standard network architectures. We use it to separate four versions of neural network field theory, according to whether the defining object is the finite width ensemble or its infinite width limit, and whether the target we want to compute is a quantum or an effective field theory. Neither finite width interpretation is straightforwardly consistent. For finite width ensembles with finite variance at each point, the QFT interpretation fails reflection positivity, while the EFT interpretation establishes no scale separation by which the positivity violation can be placed outside its domain of validity. Of the two limit versions, one can be simulated in full and the other only in part, as only its smeared correlators are computable with a controlled error. As such, at the level of a controlled numerical computation, the QFT and EFT versions cannot be distinguished. One dimension escapes the obstruction, yet reflection positivity is shown to still fail there at every finite width for the cosine network. Two escapes from the theorem remain, giving up either finite variance at a point or exact rotation invariance, and we discuss both of these possibilities.

High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); Machine Learning (cs.LG); High Energy Physics - Lattice (hep-lat); High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); Mathematical Physics (math-ph)

arXiv:2608.21523 [hep-th]

(or arXiv:2608.21523v1 [hep-th] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.21523 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

analiza aiqbench

What Neural Network Field Theory Can and Cannot Realise on a Computer

Subiecte conexe