Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Effective Theory Building and Manifold Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that building effective models—including effective field theories—is a form of manifold learning.

desk verdict A useful unifying analogy between manifold learning, MBAM, and EFT building, but the abstract overstates it by calling them 'special cases' when the paper itself only establishes an analogy. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15975 v1 pith:IVUTY5JN submitted 2024-11-24 physics.hist-ph hep-phhep-thmath-phmath.MP

David Peter Wallis Freeborn This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phhep-phhep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords manifoldlearningeffectivefieldtheorysloppymodelsmodelreductionrenormalizationgroupdimensionalhypothesisphilosophyofscience
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Manifold learning—the family of machine-learning methods that compress high-dimensional data onto a lower-dimensional manifold—and effective model building in science are usually treated as opposite operations: one simplifies data, the other simplifies a model. The paper argues that this opposition is misleading. Its specific claim is that the manifold boundary approximation method, a geometric technique for reducing 'sloppy' models whose predictions ignore most parameter combinations, is a special kind of manifold learning in which a prior model first identifies the stiff directions and the reduced model is then fitted to data. It extends the same argument to effective field theory in quantum physics: renormalization group flow can be understood as a coarse-graining of the prediction space that makes the theory sloppier along irrelevant directions, so building an EFT by discarding irrelevant couplings is again a special kind of manifold learning. If the argument succeeds, the success of all three techniques rests on one compressibility assumption—real-world systems contain redundant regularities that permit lower-dimensional representation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the model manifold $R'$—the image of the parameter-to-prediction map $f'(y')$ in prediction space—equipped with the Fisher information metric. Geodesics on this manifold are the load-bearing mechanism: long geodesics correspond to stiff parameter combinations that strongly affect predictions, short geodesics to sloppy combinations that can be varied over many orders of magnitude with little effect, and each sloppy geodesic terminates at a manifold boundary where a parameter combination can be removed. MBAM iteratively traces the sloppiest geodesic to a boundary and reduces the model dimension. The renormalization group is treated as a flow on the same manifold, but with the added step of coarse-graining the prediction space; the paper uses a modified Lie derivative of the Fisher metric to show that the metric decreases along irrelevant directions while staying preserved along relevant and marginal directions. The formal bridge is the paper's sloppiness criterion, which is the manifold hypothesis—existence of a low-dimensional submanifold with bounded volume and reach lying close to the data—with the extra requirement that the submanifold be an effective model derived from a sloppy model.

What would settle it

Compute the Fisher information eigenvalues along the renormalization group flow for the one-dimensional Ising model under block spin transformations. If the metric fails to contract along irrelevant directions while remaining preserved along relevant and marginal directions, the geometric mechanism linking EFT building to manifold learning would be refuted. A second test: take a standard sloppy model and check whether the reduced model found by MBAM is genuinely an embedded submanifold—injective, smooth, homeomorphic onto its image; a non-injective or self-intersecting model manifold would break the embedding assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that effective model building and effective field theory construction belong to the same dimensional-reduction scheme as manifold learning. The key construction is the model manifold: a scientific model $f'$ mapping parameters to predictions defines an $M'$-dimensional submanifold of the prediction space, and the Fisher information matrix gives this manifold a Riemannian metric. On that manifold, the paper argues, the manifold boundary approximation method (MBAM) follows the geodesic of the least-sensitive parameter combination to a boundary, eliminates that parameter, and thereby produces a lower-dimensional submanifold fitted to data—exactly the object manifold learning produces, but with the extra epistemic step of using a prior model to identify stiff directions. For effective field theory, renormalization group flow is presented as a transformation that preserves predictions while coarse-graining the theory in the prediction space, with the Fisher metric contracting along irrelevant directions; deleting those irrelevant parameters is therefore the same kind of reduction. The paper states the common foundation as a compressibility requirement: the data, the model, or the theory is redundant enough to be well represented by a lower-dimensional effective model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a scientific model's parameter-to-prediction map is a smooth, injective embedding of a submanifold in prediction space, so that the model manifold has the same geometric structure manifold learning assumes for data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MBAM and manifold learning no longer look like two different kinds of procedure: both produce a lower-dimensional submanifold of the prediction/feature space tuned to data, differing only in which prior knowledge they use.
  • The success of effective model building across the sciences, like the success of manifold learning, becomes evidence for a global compressibility assumption about real-world systems, not a peculiarity of quantum field theory.
  • Renormalization-group-based effective field theory construction is a special case of dimensional reduction with coarse-graining; the metric contraction along irrelevant directions provides a quantitative account of why irrelevant couplings can be discarded.
  • The philosophical debate about reduction and emergence in the renormalization group can be reframed: these dimensional reduction schemes take the form of approximate Nagelian reductions with explicit functional relations between the higher- and lower-dimensional parameter spaces.
  • Selective realism arguments that have been based on effective field theories could extend to any algorithmic dimensional-reduction technique, provided a local manifold hypothesis can be defended for the relevant domain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test suggested by the unification: for a given dataset, estimate the intrinsic dimension with a manifold-learning algorithm and compare it with the effective dimension found by MBAM on a model of the same system; agreement would support the claim, divergence would locate where the analogy breaks.
  • If the compressibility assumption is the real foundation, then the global manifold hypothesis and the observed ubiquity of sloppy models are the same empirical bet, and evidence against one (for example, data that genuinely fills a high-dimensional feature space) should undercut the other in that domain.
  • The paper leaves implicit that beta-function eigenvalues in a concrete EFT should line up with the Fisher-information eigen-directions; checking this alignment in a model like the one-dimensional Ising block-spin transformation would test whether the RG-as-manifold-learning reading carries quantitative force.
  • By the paper's logic, the 'emergence' often attributed to deep learning representations could be understood as the same coarse-graining phenomenon as in renormalization, which would transfer parts of the physics philosophy debate about emergence to machine learning—an extension the paper does not make.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues that certain kinds of high-dimensional effective model building, specifically the manifold boundary approximation method (MBAM) and effective field theory (EFT) construction via renormalization group flow, can be viewed as special cases of manifold learning. It develops a framework in which dimensional reduction in machine learning, sloppy-model reduction in the computational sciences, and RG-based EFT construction all rest on a common compressibility assumption: high-dimensional data or models contain regularities that allow them to be well-represented by lower-dimensional structures. The paper formalizes the manifold hypothesis as a distance-based criterion (Eq. 8) and proposes an analogous sloppiness criterion (Eq. 16), then concludes that all three approaches are 'akin to' a special kind of manifold learning. The argument is presented in a clear expository style, with diagrams and worked examples, and the philosophical implications for reduction and realism are briefly explored.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would make a substantive contribution by connecting the philosophy of effective theories and the renormalization group with machine learning theory, potentially offering new tools for analyzing model reduction and compressibility across scientific domains. The paper is commendably transparent and well-structured: it provides a useful formal explication of the manifold hypothesis following Fefferman et al., a clear description of MBAM's information-geometric machinery, and an explicit statement of the shared compressibility assumption. It also includes honest self-limitations, such as the acknowledgment in Section 7 that MBAM does not find the submanifold best tuned to the data and the weakening to 'akin to' in Section 10. However, as detailed in the major comments, the paper supports an analogy rather than the special-case inclusion claimed in the abstract. As an analogy paper, it could be a valuable contribution to philosophy of science, provided the claims are recalibrated and the key formal mismatches are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3, 6, and 7] The abstract's claim that MBAM and EFT construction are 'special cases of manifold learning' is not supported by the paper's own formal descriptions. In Section 3, manifold learning is characterized by a cost function C: RN × RK → R of the form (2), defined on feature-latent pairs and meant to measure preservation of geometric or topological structure, and by minimization over embeddings m. In Section 6, the MBAM cost functions (13) and (14) are data-fit objectives between predictions and parameters, and the reduction function g': RM' → RK' maps the original parameter space to an effective parameter space rather than mapping the feature/prediction space to a latent space. Section 7 explicitly concedes that 'MBAM does not entail finding the sub-manifold most tuned to the data,' and Section 10 weakens the conclusion to 'akin to a special kind of manifold learning.' Thus the paper establishes a shared compressibility assumption and a structural analogy, but not the special-case inclusion stated in the abstract; to support inclusion, the author would need either to show that MBAM optimizes a cost of the form (2) or to specify a different inclusion criterion and then show it is satisfied.
  2. [Section 7, Eq. (16)] The sloppiness criterion in Eq. (16) is constructed as L(M', {x'_i}) < epsilon, which is precisely the manifold hypothesis condition (8) with the additional restriction that the approximating manifold be an 'effective model manifold' produced from a sloppy model. The paper itself acknowledges at the end of Section 7 that the criterion is 'essentially the manifold hypothesis from section 4, alongside an addition requirement.' Because the shared criterion is built in by definition, the claimed identification is partly definitional and does not provide independent evidence for a substantive special-case relation between effective model building and manifold learning. The author should clarify what new empirical or mathematical content the identification is intended to carry beyond this formal parallel.
  3. [Section 6, embedding assumptions] The manifold interpretation of a scientific model requires f': RM' → RN' to be smooth, injective, an immersion, and a homeomorphism onto its image (Section 6). These regularity assumptions are load-bearing for the geodesic, boundary, and Fisher-information machinery that connects MBAM to manifold learning, but they are not defended for the kinds of models the paper discusses. Many scientific models exhibit parameter non-identifiability, symmetry-induced identifications, or self-intersecting prediction sets; for such models the Fisher information matrix can be singular or the model manifold may not be a smooth embedded submanifold. The paper should either restrict its claim to model classes that satisfy these assumptions (e.g., identifiable, regular statistical models) or explain how the argument extends to non-regular cases in the contexts the paper aims to cover, such as EFT construction and systems biology models.
  4. [Section 9] For effective field theory construction, the paper does not actually claim that RG-based EFT building instantiates the Section 3 scheme; Section 9 says that effective theory building 'could also be understood as akin to a special kind of manifold learning' and hedges with 'Insofar as effective theory building in physics involves increasing model sloppiness and then creating an effective model in the sense of section 6.' No cost function of the form (2) is minimized in RG flow, and the RG transformation includes an additional coarse-graining of the prediction space that is not present in the manifold-learning scheme. The EFT discussion therefore cannot support the abstract's stronger 'special case' claim; the author should either lower the claim to analogy or supply a precise construction of EFT building as an instance of the Section 3 scheme.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'we construct a simplified model of the another model' should read 'we construct a simplified model of the other model.'
  2. [Section 6] In the paragraph beginning 'Tthe existence of these boundaries,' there is a typo: 'Tthe' should be 'The.'
  3. [Section 7] In the sentence 'and the reduced latent space, RN,' the space should be RK, not RN, since it is the low-dimensional latent space.
  4. [Section 8] The word 'sclaes' in the first paragraph should be 'scales.'
  5. [Section 8, Eq. (17)] In the Lagrangian of Eq. (17), the mass term for the heavy field is written as '1/2 m_H^2 phi_L^2'; this should likely be '1/2 m_H^2 phi_H^2' for consistency with the rest of the expression.
  6. [Introduction] The paper relies heavily on definitions and arguments from Freeborn (2024) for key notions such as sloppy systems and the success of science; the introduction would benefit from a more explicit statement of how the present paper relates to and extends that earlier work.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The formal 'sloppiness criterion' is the manifold hypothesis with an extra restriction, making part of the 'special case' claim definitional; independent procedural and RG content remains.

  1. self definitional [Section 7, Eq. (16) and the following paragraph]
    "Observe that this sloppiness criterion is essentially the manifold hypothesis from section 4, alongside an addition requirement: the sub-manifold that describes the data must be an effective model manifold, produced from a sloppy model."

    The paper proposes Eq. (16) as 'one plausible explication of sloppiness': there must exist an effective model sub-manifold M' in G' with L(M', {x'_i}) < eps. This is exactly the manifold hypothesis Eq. (8), with the class of admissible sub-manifolds restricted to sub-manifolds of the original model manifold R'. The paper itself concedes the criterion 'is essentially' the manifold hypothesis. Therefore, to the extent that the abstract's 'special cases of manifold learning' claim rests on this criterion, the inclusion is true by construction rather than by an independent derivation from MBAM's algorithm or from the physics of RG flow. The procedural and information-geometric arguments in Sections 7 and 9 give independent analogical support, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The paper's central thesis is an analogy, not a fitted prediction, so most of the derivation chain is not circular. The one definitional reduction is in Section 7: the paper proposes Eq. (16) as 'one plausible explication of sloppiness' and then itself observes that it 'is essentially the manifold hypothesis from section 4, alongside an addition requirement.' Because Eq. (16) is literally Eq. (8) with the admissible manifolds restricted to effective-model submanifolds of R', the claim that sloppy/effective model building is a 'special case' of manifold learning is partly true by construction. That would be a more serious circularity if it were the only support; however, Section 7 also gives a procedural argument (both techniques construct a data-tuned submanifold, with MBAM using a prior model to identify stiff directions), and Section 9 gives an independent information-geometric argument about the FIM decreasing under RG flow. The paper repeatedly cites Freeborn (2024) for the definition of sloppiness and for the success-of-science claim, but those definitions are also sourced to Transtrum et al., Machta et al., and Sethna-group literature, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction. Thus the circularity is partial and localized: the special-case inclusion is partly definitional, but the paper has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central argument rests on several unproved domain assumptions: the global manifold hypothesis, the embedding idealization for scientific models, the FIM-as-metric identification, the RG metric-decrease result from Raju et al., and the empirical claim that real systems are sloppy. No free parameters are fitted; the paper contributes a conceptual thesis rather than an empirical or formal derivation.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The global manifold hypothesis: many real-world high-dimensional datasets lie on or near a low-dimensional manifold.
    Introduced in Section 4 as the shared assumption of manifold learning; the paper notes it has no general theoretical motivation and is supported mainly empirically.
  • domain assumption Scientific models can be treated as smooth, injective embeddings f prime from parameter space into prediction space.
    Section 6 requires the model map to be smooth, injective, an immersion, and a homeomorphism onto its image; many realistic models with non-identifiabilities, singularities, or self-intersections may violate this.
  • domain assumption The Fisher Information Matrix defines a Riemannian metric on the model manifold, and geodesic lengths correspond to sloppiness.
    From Transtrum et al. and used throughout Sections 5 to 7 to connect sloppiness to model boundaries and MBAM.
  • domain assumption Renormalization group flow increases sloppiness by decreasing the Fisher information metric along irrelevant directions.
    Relying on Raju et al. (2018), Section 9 uses this to argue EFT construction is MBAM-like; if this metric-decrease result fails for a given theory, the analogy weakens.
  • domain assumption Real-world target systems are sloppy or compressible, meaning they exhibit redundancies.
    The concluding thesis assumes a global compressibility of systems; the paper admits it lacks compelling theoretical motivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effective Theory Building and Manifold Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IVUTY5JN

@misc{pith2026241115975,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effective Theory Building and Manifold Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IVUTY5JN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15975}
}
read the original abstract

Manifold learning and effective model building are generally viewed as fundamentally different types of procedure. After all, in one we build a simplified model of the data, in the other, we construct a simplified model of the another model. Nonetheless, I argue that certain kinds of high-dimensional effective model building, and effective field theory construction in quantum field theory, can be viewed as special cases of manifold learning. I argue that this helps to shed light on all of these techniques. First, it suggests that the effective model building procedure depends upon a certain kind of algorithmic compressibility requirement. All three approaches assume that real-world systems exhibit certain redundancies, due to regularities. The use of these regularities to build simplified models is essential for scientific progress in many different domains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15975 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A category theoretic representation of the direct and simplified modeling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A category theoretic representation of the original and effective modeling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Replicator-Optimization Mechanism: A Scale-Relative Formalism for Persistence-Conditioned Dynamics with Application to Consent-Based Metaethics

    econ.TH 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Known evolutionary dynamics are recast as a scale-relative kernel, and consent, legitimacy, and belief-transfer are mapped onto that kernel to generate conditional normative recommendations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    and Carrazone, J

    Appelquist, T. and Carrazone, J. (1975). Infrared singularities and massive fields. Physical Review D , 11:2856

    1975

  2. [2]

    Athanasopoulou, G., Iosif, E., and Potamianos, A. (2014). Low-dimensional manifold distributional semantic models. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers , pages 731--740

    2014

  3. [3]

    Batterman, R. W. (2002). The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emergence . Oxford University Press

    2002

  4. [4]

    Batterman, R. W. (2005). Critical phenomena and breaking drops: Infinite idealizations in physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 36(2):225--244

    2005

  5. [5]

    Batterman, R. W. (2011). Emergence, singularities, and symmetry breaking. Foundations of Physics , 41(6):1031--1050

    2011

  6. [6]

    and Niyogi, P

    Belkin, M. and Niyogi, P. (2001). Laplacian eigenmaps and spectral techniques for embedding and clustering. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems: Natural and Synthetic , NIPS'01, page 585–591, Cambridge, MA, USA. MIT Press

    2001

  7. [7]

    Belkin, M., Niyogi, P., and Sindhwani, V. (2006). Manifold regularization: A geometric framework for learning from labeled and unlabeled examples. J. Mach. Learn. Res. , 7:2399–2434

    2006

  8. [8]

    Bellman, R. E. (1957). Dynamic Programming . Princeton University Press

    1957

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Bellman, R. E. (1961). Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour . Princeton University Press

    1961

  2. [10]

    Bengio, Y., Courville, A., and Vincent, P. (2013). Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , 35(8):1798–1828

    2013

  3. [11]

    Berenfeld, C., Harvey, J., Hoffmann, M., et al. (2022). Estimating the reach of a manifold via its convexity defect function. Discrete Computational Geometry , 67:403--438

    2022

  4. [12]

    Binney, J., Dowrick, N., Fisher, A., and Newman, M. (1992). The Theory of Critical Phenomena: An Introduction to the Renormalization Group . Oxford Science Publ. Clarendon Press

    1992

  5. [13]

    Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning . Springer

    2006

  6. [14]

    Bordt, S., Upadhyay, U., Akata, Z., and von Luxburg, U. (2023). The manifold hypothesis for gradient-based explanations. In IEEE/CVF 2023 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) , pages 3697--3702

    2023

  7. [15]

    P., Wu, D., and She, Y

    Brahma, P. P., Wu, D., and She, Y. (2016). Why deep learning works: A manifold disentanglement perspective. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 27(10):1997--2008. Epub 2015 Dec 7

    2016

  8. [16]

    Breiman, L. (2001). Statistical modeling: The two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author). Statistical Science , 16

    2001

  9. [17]

    C., Caterini, A

    Brown, B. C., Caterini, A. L., Ross, B. L., Cresswell, J. C., and Loaiza-Ganem, G. (2022). The union of manifolds hypothesis. In NeurIPS 2022 Workshop on Symmetry and Geometry in Neural Representations

    2022

  10. [18]

    Burgess, C. P. (2020). Introduction to Effective Field Theory: Thinking Effectively about Hierarchies of Scale . Cambridge University Press

    2020

  11. [19]

    Butterfield, J. (2014). Reduction, Emergence and Renormalization . J. Philos. , 111:5--49

    2014

  12. [20]

    and Bouatta, N

    Butterfield, J. and Bouatta, N. (2014). Renormalization for philosophers. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities , 104

    2014

  13. [21]

    Cayton, L. (2005). Algorithms for manifold learning. Technical Report 12(1–17), University of California at San Diego

    2005

  14. [22]

    Dizadji-Bahmani, F., Frigg, R., and Hartmann, S. (2010). Who’s afraid of nagelian reduction? Erkenntnis , 73(3):393--412

    2010

  15. [23]

    Duncan, A. (2012). The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory . Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    2012

  16. [24]

    Fefferman, C., Mitter, S., and Narayanan, H. (2016). Testing the manifold hypothesis. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 29(4):983--1049

    2016

  17. [25]

    Fisher, R. A. (1936). The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics , 7(2):179--188

    1936

  18. [26]

    Fraser, J. D. (2018). Renormalization and the formulation of scientific realism. Philosophy of Science , 85(5):1164--1175

    2018

  19. [27]

    Fraser, J. D. (2020a). The real problem with perturbative quantum field theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 71(2):391--413

    2020

  20. [28]

    Fraser, J. D. (2020b). Towards a realist view of quantum field theory. In French, S. and Saatsi, J., editors, Scientific Realism and the Quantum , pages 276--292. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    2020

  21. [29]

    Freeborn, D. (2024). Sloppy models, renormalization group realism, and the success of science. Erkenntnis , pages 1--29

    2024

  22. [30]

    Goldenfeld, N. (1992). Lectures On Phase Transitions And The Renormalization Group . CRC Press, 1st edition

    1992

  23. [31]

    Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., and Courville, A. (2016). Deep Learning . The MIT Press

    2016

  24. [32]

    Gorban, A. N. and Tyukin, I. Y. (2018). Blessing of dimensionality: Mathematical foundations of the statistical physics of data. Philosophical Transactions A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 376(2118):20170237

    2018

  25. [33]

    and Pollack, A

    Guillemin, V. and Pollack, A. (1974). Differential Topology . Prentice-Hall

    1974

  26. [34]

    N., Waterfall, J

    Gutenkunst, R. N., Waterfall, J. J., Casey, F. P., Brown, K. S., Myers, C. R., and Sethna, J. P. (2007). Universally sloppy parameter sensitivities in systems biology models. PLOS Computational Biology , 3(10):1--8

    2007

  27. [35]

    Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction . Springer Series in Statistics

    2009

  28. [36]

    and Roweis, S

    Hinton, G. and Roweis, S. (2002). Stochastic neighbor embedding. In Neural Information Processing Systems

    2002

  29. [37]

    Hinton, G. E. and Salakhutdinov, R. R. (2006). Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science , 313:504--507

    2006

  30. [38]

    Hirsch, M. W. (1994). Differential Topology . Springer, New York, corr. 5th print. edition

    1994

  31. [39]

    V., Chekunov, A

    Ivanov, A., Nosovskiy, G. V., Chekunov, A. Y., Fedoseev, D. A., Kibkalo, V. A., Nikulin, M., Popelenskiy, F., Komkov, S. A., Mazurenko, I. L., and Petiushko, A. (2021). Manifold hypothesis in data analysis: Double geometrically-probabilistic approach to manifold dimension esti...

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Izenman, A. J. (1975). Reduced-rank regression for the multivariate linear model. Journal of Multivariate Analysis

    1975

  33. [41]

    Izenman, A. J. (2012). Introduction to manifold learning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics , 4(5):439--446

    2012

  34. [42]

    Jolliffe, I. T. and Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 374(2065):20150202

    2016

  35. [43]

    Kadanoff, L. P. (1966). Scaling laws for ising models near T _ c . Physics Physique Fizika , 2:263--272

    1966

  36. [44]

    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., and Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature , 521(7553):436--444

    2015

  37. [45]

    LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., and Haffner, P. (1998). Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE , 86(11):2278--2324

    1998

  38. [46]

    LeCun, Y., Cortes, C., and Burges, C. (2010). Mnist handwritten digit database. http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/

    2010

  39. [47]

    B., Chachra, R., Transtrum, M

    Machta, B. B., Chachra, R., Transtrum, M. K., and Sethna, J. P. (2013). Parameter space compression underlies emergent theories and predictive models. Science , 342(6158):604–607

    2013

  40. [48]

    McInnes, L. et al. (2018). Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection. Journal of Open Source Software , 3(29):861

    2018

  41. [49]

    and Zhang, H

    Meilă, M. and Zhang, H. (2023). Manifold learning: what, how, and why

    2023

  42. [50]

    Miller, M. (2017). The structure and interpretation of quantum field theory

    2017

  43. [51]

    M., Lawson, B

    Monsalve-Bravo, G. M., Lawson, B. A. J., Drovandi, C., Burrage, K., Brown, K. S., Baker, C. M., Vollert, S. A., Mengersen, K., McDonald-Madden, E., and Adams, M. P. (2022). Analysis of sloppiness in model simulations: Unveiling parameter uncertainty when mathematical models ar...

    2022

  44. [52]

    Morrison, M. (2012). Reconstructing Reality: Models, Mathematics, and Simulations . Oxford University Press

    2012

  45. [53]

    Murphy, K. P. (2012). Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective . The MIT Press

    2012

  46. [54]

    Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science . London: Routledge and Keagan Paul

    1961

  47. [55]

    and Mitter, S

    Narayanan, H. and Mitter, S. (2010). Sample complexity of testing the manifold hypothesis. In Lafferty, J., Williams, C., Shawe-Taylor, J., Zemel, R., and Culotta, A., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 23. Curran Associates, Inc

    2010

  48. [56]

    Olah, C. (2014). Neural networks, manifolds, and topology. https://colah.github.io/posts/2014-03-NN-Manifolds-Topology/. Accessed: 2023-31-12

    2014

  49. [57]

    Pain, H. J. (2005). The Physics of Vibrations and Waves . Wiley, 6 edition

    2005

  50. [58]

    Pearson, K. (1901). On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philosophical Magazine , 2(11):559--572

    1901

  51. [59]

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, \'E . (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. J...

    2011

  52. [60]

    Polchinski, J. (1984). Renormalization and Effective Lagrangians . Nucl. Phys. B , 231:269--295

    1984

  53. [61]

    N., Abbott, M

    Quinn, K. N., Abbott, M. C., Transtrum, M. K., Machta, B. B., and Sethna, J. P. (2022). Information geometry for multiparameter models: new perspectives on the origin of simplicity. Reports on Progress in Physics , 86(3):035901

    2022

  54. [62]

    B., and Sethna, J

    Raju, A., Machta, B. B., and Sethna, J. P. (2018). Information loss under coarse graining: A geometric approach. Physical Review E , 98(5)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Rivat, S. (2021). Effective theories and infinite idealizations: A challenge for scientific realism. Synthese

    2021

  56. [64]

    and Saul, L

    Roweis, S. and Saul, L. (2000). Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding. Science , 290(5500):2323--2326

    2000

  57. [65]

    Ruetsche, L. (2018). Renormalization group realism: The ascent of pessimism. Philosophy of Science , 85(5):1176--1189

    2018

  58. [66]

    Schaffner, K. F. (1967). Approaches to reduction. Philosophy of Science , 34:137–147

    1967

  59. [67]

    Sozou, P., Lane, P., Addis, M., and Gobet, F. (2017). Computational scientific discovery. In Magnani, L. and Bertolotti, T., editors, Springer Handbook of Model-Based Science . Springer, Cham

    2017

  60. [68]

    Srivastava, N., Hinton, G., Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Salakhutdinov, R. (2014). Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 15(56):1929--1958

    2014

  61. [69]

    Stanford, P. K. (2010). Exceeding Our Grasp . Oxford University Press USA

    2010

  62. [70]

    Strandkvist, C., Chvykov, P., and Tikhonov, M. (2020). Beyond rg: from parameter flow to metric flow. arXiv: Statistical Mechanics

    2020

  63. [71]

    Sullivan, E. (2022). Understanding from machine learning models. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 73(1):109--133

    2022

  64. [72]

    B., de Silva, V., and Langford, J

    Tenenbaum, J. B., de Silva, V., and Langford, J. C. (2000). A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. Science

    2000

  65. [73]

    K., Quinn, K

    Teoh, H. K., Quinn, K. N., Kent-Dobias, J., Clement, C. B., Xu, Q., and Sethna, J. P. (2020). Visualizing probabilistic models in minkowski space with intensive symmetrized kullback-leibler embedding. Phys. Rev. Res. , 2:033221

    2020

  66. [74]

    Transtrum, M., Machta, B., Brown, K., Daniels, B., Myers, R., and Sehtna, J. (2015). Sloppiness and emergent theories in physics, biology and beyond. J. Chem. Phys

    2015

  67. [75]

    K., Machta, B

    Transtrum, M. K., Machta, B. B., and Sethna, J. P. (2010). Why are nonlinear fits to data so challenging? Phys. Rev. Lett. , 104:060201

    2010

  68. [76]

    K., Machta, B

    Transtrum, M. K., Machta, B. B., and Sethna, J. P. (2011). Geometry of nonlinear least squares with applications to sloppy models and optimization. Phys. Rev. E , 83:036701

    2011

  69. [77]

    Transtrum, M. K. and Qiu, P. (2014). Model reduction by manifold boundaries. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 113:098701

    2014

  70. [78]

    and Hinton, G

    van der Maaten, L. and Hinton, G. (2008). Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 9:2579--2605

    2008

  71. [79]

    Vapnik, V. (1995). The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory . Springer-Verlag

    1995

  72. [80]

    Wallace, D. (2006). In defence of naiveté: The conceptual status of lagrangian quantum field theory. Synthese , 151(1):33--80

    2006

  73. [81]

    Weinberg, S. (1996). What is quantum field theory, and what did we think it is? In Conference on Historical Examination and Philosophical Reflections on the Foundations of Quantum Field Theory , pages 241--251

    1996

  74. [82]

    Williams, P. (2019). Scientific realism made effective. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 70(1):209--237

    2019

  75. [83]

    Williamson, J. (2009). The philosophy of science and its relation to machine learning. In Gaber, M., editor, Scientific Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    2009

  76. [84]

    Wilson, K. G. (1983). The renormalization group and critical phenomena. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 55:583--600

    1983

  77. [85]

    Wilson, K. G. and Kogut, J. (1974). The renormalization group and the e expansion. Physics Reports , 12(2):75 -- 199

    1974

  78. [86]

    Yao, C., Liu, Y.-F., Jiang, B., Han, J., and Han, J. (2017). Lle score: A new filter-based unsupervised feature selection method based on nonlinear manifold embedding and its application to image recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 26(11):5257--5269. Epub 2017 Jul 28

    2017

  79. [87]

    and Ma, H

    You, S. and Ma, H. (2011). Manifold topological multi-resolution analysis method. Pattern Recognition , 44(8):1629--1648

    2011

  80. [88]

    Zomolodchikov, A. B. (1986). Irreversibility of the Flux of the Renormalization Group in a 2D Field Theory . JETP Lett. , 43:730--732

    1986

  81. [89]

    and Hastie, T

    Zou, H. and Hastie, T. (2005). Regularization and Variable Selection Via the Elastic Net . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 67(2):301--320

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.