Scaling laws for amplitude surrogates

Scaling laws for amplitude surrogates

🎙 Joaquin ITURRIZA RAMIREZ 👥 5K 📅 October 9, 2025 ⏱ 36 min 👁 46 📄 original study 🧭 2026-08-16
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

scaling lawsscattering amplitudesneural networksheteroscedastic lossuniversality

Summary

The presentation by Joaquin Iturriza Ramirez at IPhT-TV focuses on scaling laws for amplitude surrogates, i.e., neural networks trained to predict scattering amplitudes. The motivation is that amplitude calculations are expensive, and machine learning offers a fast alternative. The speaker shows that performance improves predictably with resources (data, compute, parameters) following power laws, with plateaus indicating bottlenecks. They systematically study a wide range of processes, generated with MadGraph at leading order, and find universal scaling behaviors. They also investigate the relationship between scaling exponents and the intrinsic dimensionality of the process, finding a general trend but with outliers. They test different loss functions, including a heteroscedastic loss that provides calibrated uncertainties, which also exhibit scaling. They compare architectures, noting that permutation-invariant networks like GATr perform better for processes with symmetries. The talk concludes with a discussion on training practices, including the use of early stopping and learning rate schedules.

149 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The talk provides valuable insights into the empirical scaling behavior of neural network surrogates for scattering amplitudes. The argumentation is solid, based on systematic experiments across many processes and resources. The speaker clearly explains the methodology and acknowledges limitations, such as the need for learning rate optimization. The discussion of the relationship between scaling exponents and degrees of freedom is interesting, though not fully conclusive. The presentation is well-structured and the results are convincing.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The scientific rigor is high: the speaker uses established tools (MadGraph) and clearly defines the setup. However, no external sources are cited in the talk, and the description provides no links. The title accurately reflects the content. The speaker mentions a paper by colleagues but does not provide a reference. The lack of citations limits the ability to verify claims, but the methodology appears sound.

154 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content, which focuses on scaling laws for machine learning surrogates of scattering amplitudes.

Quality & Reliability

8/10

The talk presents original research with clear methodology, systematic scaling analysis, and comparisons across many processes. The speaker is transparent about limitations and ongoing work. However, the lack of published paper or external references limits verification.

Key Moments

Concurring Sources

  • Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models — Provides the theoretical and empirical basis for scaling laws in deep learning, which the talk extends to amplitude surrogates.
  • Neural Scaling Laws — A broad study of scaling laws across domains, supporting the universality observed in the talk.

Contribution & Novelties

The talk presents a systematic study of scaling laws for neural network surrogates of scattering amplitudes, covering a wide range of processes and resources. It provides evidence for universal power-law behavior and a relationship between scaling exponents and the intrinsic dimensionality of the process. The use of heteroscedastic loss to obtain calibrated uncertainties that also scale is a novel contribution. The comparison of architectures highlights the importance of permutation invariance.

Pour aller plus loin :

142 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores across all dimensions, indicating a well-rounded presentation with strong quantitative and qualitative content, high technical depth, and good reliability. The slightly lower score in 'quantite_information' relative to others suggests a focused scope rather than a broad overview.

Reliability 8/10

💬 No comments were provided for analysis.