When do complex-valued neural networks help? A study of representation, geometry, and optimization
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:When do complex-valued neural networks help? A study of representation, geometry, and optimization
Abstract:Complex-valued Neural Networks (CVNNs) are often motivated by domains where information is naturally encoded in magnitude and phase. Yet complex-valued inputs alone do not determine when complex arithmetic improves learning: the label signal may lie in amplitude, phase, their coupling, or a symmetry that real-valued models can also represent under suitable coordinates. We study this through a representation-first evaluation of CVNNs against Cartesian real, polar, phase-only, magnitude-only, parameter-matched real, and FLOP-matched real baselines. Across synthetic RF tasks, complex representations are useful but not universally superior. PSK-only tasks favor phase-aware and complex-valued models, QAM-only tasks favor magnitude-based models, mixed PSK+QAM gives only a small complex-valued advantage, and unseen carrier-phase rotations break coordinate-dependent models without augmentation. Similar patterns appear beyond RF: in quantum-wavefunction prediction, momentum is invisible to $|\psi|$ but recoverable from phase, while EEG analytic-signal experiments show that phase locking, amplitude bursts, and phase-amplitude coupling each favor different coordinate views. We also identify a benchmarking artifact on RadioML 2018.01A. Under matched-shared-trial selection, a CReLU complex model exceeds the best real baseline by 22.94 PP; under independent per-family tuning on the same data and 16-trial search space, the gap collapses to 2.46 PP. Gradient analysis traces the inflated gap to high-learning-rate first-step instability in real baselines, while complex parameter coupling distributes the loss signal more robustly. A learning-rate $\times$ activation factorial confirms the failure is primarily hyperparameter-driven. Overall, CVNNs are best viewed as structured inductive biases whose gains depend on representation, symmetry, and optimization, not as universally superior architectures.
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2605.27673 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2605.27673v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.27673
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
Personalized Observation Normalization for Federated Reinforcement Learning in Simulation Environments with Heterogeneity
May 28
-
IGADA-IoT: IoT Sensor Energy Optimization in Wireless Sensor Networks Driven by Automatic Data Augmentation
May 28
-
A Simple State Space Model Excels at Multivariate Time Series Classification
May 28
-
$E^3$-Agent: An Executable and Evolving Agent for Resource Management of Edge Generative Inference
May 28
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.