Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Can neural operators always be continuously discretized?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that no continuous discretization scheme exists for general C¹ diffeomorphisms on Hilbert spaces, while strongly monotone neural operator layers—and bilipschitz layers via decomposition—do admit continuous discretization.

desk verdict A clean no-go theorem for continuous discretization of diffeomorphisms, paired with a repair-worthy positive decomposition result that currently rests on a false C^1 regularity assertion; conditional acceptance is the right call. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03393 v1 pith:B65LWODV submitted 2024-12-04 cs.LG

Takashi Furuya , Michael Puthawala , Maarten V. de Hoop , Matti Lassas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG MSC 46T0547H0568T07
keywords neuraloperatorsdiscretizationinvariancediffeomorphismsininfinitedimensionsstronglymonotonebilipschitzcategorytheoryno-gotheoremHilbertspaces
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

The paper asks whether a smooth bijection between infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces—the kind of map an invertible neural operator is trained to represent—can always be approximated by diffeomorphisms on finite-dimensional subspaces in a way that varies continuously with the map. It proves that the answer is no: no functorial approximation scheme that turns each C¹ diffeomorphism into finite-dimensional diffeomorphisms, uniformly on bounded sets, can also be continuous. The obstruction is topological: finite-dimensional diffeomorphisms separate into orientation-preserving and orientation-reversing classes, while the corresponding infinite-dimensional groups are connected, so any continuous approximation would have to jump between disconnected components. The paper's positive route is strong monotonicity: strongly monotone neural operator layers are continuously discretizable by orthogonal projection, and every bilipschitz neural operator layer agrees on bounded balls with a composition of strongly monotone layers followed by either the identity or a reflection. If these results hold, they give a rigorous discretization platform for a practically relevant class of invertible neural operators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the approximation functor $A$, which assigns to each Hilbert-space diffeomorphism $F:X\to X$ a family of finite-dimensional maps $F_V:V\to V$ and is required to be continuous in the map $F$. The obstruction is measured with topological degree: for a finite-dimensional subspace of odd dimension the degree of $F_V$ must be $+1$ or $-1$, and degree is invariant under continuous deformation, whereas in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space the group of invertible linear operators is path-connected, so the identity can be deformed to a reflection through invertible maps whose discretizations would have to flip degree. The escape mechanism is strong monotonicity, the inequality $\langle F(x)-F(y), x-y\rangle_X \ge \alpha \|x-y\|_X^2$; it forces the projected derivative $P_V DF|_V$ to be strictly positive definite, fixing the degree at $+1$. The residual structure $F(x)=x+T_2G(T_1x)$ with compact $T_1,T_2$ then makes projection errors finite-rank and controllable.

What would settle it

Take $X$ a separable Hilbert space and $e\in X$ a unit vector. Let $T_1x=\langle x,e\rangle e$, $T_2z=\langle z,e\rangle e$, and $G(y)=\beta \langle y,e\rangle^2 e$; then $F(x)=x+T_2G(T_1x)$ is a $C^1$ layer in the paper's sense, and on the line $\mathbb{R}e$ it acts as $t e \mapsto (t+\beta t^2)e$. For $\beta\neq 0$ this map is not globally Lipschitz and is not surjective, so the lemma asserting that every neural operator layer is surjective fails without an additional boundedness assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2: there is no functor from the category of Hilbert-space diffeomorphisms to the category of finite-dimensional approximation sequences that satisfies the approximation property and is continuous. The paper thus says that continuity of a discretization scheme and its ability to preserve bijectivity are incompatible for general diffeomorphisms, even when nonlinear discretizations are allowed. The counterweight is that this obstruction disappears for strongly monotone diffeomorphisms: the linear discretization $F_V = P_V F|_V$ is again a strongly monotone diffeomorphism, converges uniformly to $F$ on bounded sets, and moves continuously with $F$. Finally, Theorem 4 states that any layer of a bilipschitz neural operator can be written on every bounded ball as $F = H_J \circ \cdots \circ H_1 \circ A_0$, where each $H_k$ is a strongly monotone neural operator layer and $A_0$ is either the identity or a reflection; these are exactly the pieces that can be continuously discretized.

Load-bearing premise

A load-bearing premise is the claim that every continuously differentiable map on a Hilbert space is automatically bounded and globally Lipschitz; that implication is false in infinite dimensions and several proofs use it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No universal continuous discretization scheme exists for general diffeomorphism-valued neural operators; some approximation schemes will necessarily be discontinuous in the map being discretized.
  • Strongly monotone neural operator layers can be discretized simply by orthogonal projection onto finite-dimensional subspaces, and the discretized maps inherit strong monotonicity and bijectivity.
  • Every bilipschitz neural operator layer can be continuously discretized on bounded balls by first writing it as strongly monotone layers plus the identity or a reflection.
  • The finite-rank residual approximators produced by the paper are locally invertible, with inverses computed by fixed-point iteration using a neural operator representation.
  • Combining the discretization framework with existing ReLU approximation bounds yields explicit $\epsilon_V$-approximation rates parametrized by the subspace dimension.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the false implication could be repaired by defining generalised neural operator layers with nonlinearities that are bounded and globally Lipschitz; the positive discretization constructions appear to survive that modification.
  • Editorial inference: the degree-theoretic picture suggests that any architecture meant to be continuously discretizable must keep the derivative in a fixed cone, such as strong monotonicity, rather than merely requiring bijectivity.
  • Editorial inference: in generative applications, the local inversion by iteration gives a concrete stability criterion: if every residual block has Lipschitz constant below one, the discretized inverse can be applied by fixed-point iteration with contraction errors controlled by the discretization error.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a category-theoretic framework for studying when diffeomorphisms between Hilbert spaces, and in particular bijective neural operators, can be continuously discretized to finite-dimensional diffeomorphisms. Its main results are a no-go theorem (Theorem 2) showing that no continuous approximation functor exists for general C^1 diffeomorphisms; positive results showing that strongly monotone neural operator layers admit continuous discretizations (Theorem 3); and a structural result (Theorem 4) asserting that every bilipschitz neural operator layer can be written on a bounded ball as a composition of strongly monotone neural operator layers and a reflection, with corresponding finite-rank approximation and local invertibility results (Theorems 5 and 7). The paper also gives a quantitative approximation scheme in Section 4 and an appendix with detailed proofs.

Significance. If the positive results are established, the paper would make a valuable contribution to the theory of discretization-invariant neural operators: it identifies a precise topological obstruction for general diffeomorphisms, shows that strongly monotone structure circumvents the obstruction, and provides an explicit decomposition mechanism for bilipschitz layers. The no-go theorem appears robust and is proved using standard tools (Kuiper's theorem, path-connectedness of GL(H), and degree theory). The authors also provide a quantitative approximation result, which is a useful addition. However, the positive results as stated in Theorems 4 and 5 are not proved for the class of C^1 nonlinearities admitted by Definition 4, because a load-bearing functional-analytic assertion in Section 2 is false. The manuscript deserves a major revision: the central claims are likely recoverable by restricting the definition of a neural operator layer to bounded, globally Lipschitz nonlinearities (the practically relevant case), but the current text does not support the stated generality.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, paragraph after Definition 4] The statement "Because G ∈ C^1(X) in Definition 4, it follows that G ∈ L∞(X) and Lip_{X→X}(G) < ∞" is false. For X = R, the map G(x) = x^2 is C^1 but is not globally Lipschitz, and G(x) = x is C^1 but is not in L∞(X). This is not a harmless simplification: the constants ∥G∥_{L∞} and Lip(G) are used in the Leray-Schauder argument of Lemma 5 to choose R0, and in Lemmas 7 and 8 to control Lipschitz and sup-norm errors. The proofs of Theorem 4 and Theorem 5 therefore do not cover all C^1 nonlinearities allowed by Definition 4. A repair is to explicitly add to Definition 4 the standing assumptions that G is bounded on X and globally Lipschitz, or to derive such bounds from the bilipschitz data of the full layer F, and then to re-verify Lemmas 5, 7, and 8 under that assumption.
  2. [Lemma 5, Appendix A.7.1] Lemma 5, which asserts that every neural operator layer is surjective, is false as stated under Definition 4. For X = R, T1 = T2 = 1, and G(x) = βx^2 with β > 0, the map F(x) = x + βx^2 is C^1 and has the form (4), but its range is bounded below and F is not surjective. The proof requires the uniform bound ∥K_{p;t}(x)∥ < R0, which relies on the false L∞ bound on G; without that bound the homotopy-invariance argument for the Leray-Schauder degree does not apply. Since Lemma 5 is subsequently used in Lemma 8 and in the proof of Theorem 4 to assert that F and F^W are bijective, the failure of Lemma 5 directly undermines the bilipschitz decomposition theorem.
  3. [Theorems 4 and 5, Section 3.5 and Appendix A.7.2] The main positive claims inherit the gap described above. In the proof of Theorem 4, the decomposition F = H_J ∘ ... ∘ H_1 ∘ A_0 is built using B = F^W ∘ F^{-1} - Id, and the existence of F^{-1} is obtained from Lemma 5, which is false in the stated generality. The error estimates in Lemma 7 and Lemma 8 also use the global Lipschitz constant and the L∞ norm of G, which are not finite for a general C^1 map. Consequently, Theorem 4 and the subsequent universal approximation and local inversion results in Theorem 5 are not established for the class of all C^1 nonlinearities. The no-go Theorem 2 is unaffected, since its proof uses linear diffeomorphisms and degree theory rather than Lemma 5; however, the advertised positive results require either a restriction of Definition 4 to bounded globally Lipschitz G or a new argument that obtains the needed bounds from the bilipschitz constants of F.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Definition 3, Section 2.1] The phrase "We say thatF if bilipschitz" is a grammatical error and should read "We say that F is bilipschitz if...".
  2. [Section 1.2 and Section 3.4] The word "diffeomorphsisms" is a typo; it should be "diffeomorphisms".
  3. [Definition 1, Section 2.1] The object (εV)_{V∈S0(X)} is indexed by a directed set and is technically a net, not a sequence; the terminology should be adjusted accordingly.
  4. [Section 1.1] The phrase "Our work is concerned with the of discretization of neural operators" is missing a word and should be "the discretization of neural operators".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the derivation is self-contained and relies on external, established mathematical results.

full rationale

This is a pure mathematics paper with no fitted parameters, empirical data, or predictions that could be renamed from inputs. The central no-go theorem (Theorem 2) is proved using Kuiper's theorem on the connectedness of GL(H), degree theory, and a contradiction argument, all external to the paper. The positive results (Theorems 3, 4, and 5) are constructed from Minty-Browder theory, Leray-Schauder degree theory, and quantitative neural-network approximation theorems, not from the conclusions being assumed. The only self-citations, such as Furuya et al. (2023), appear in related work and as a 'see also' after an external monotone-operator theorem in the proof of Lemma 3; they are not load-bearing. The known mathematical defect that C^1 maps on Hilbert spaces need not be globally bounded or globally Lipschitz is a correctness issue about a false premise used in some proofs, but it is not a circularity: the paper does not define its conclusions in terms of that premise, and the derivation does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. The bilipschitz decomposition and approximation results are genuine constructions, not repackaged fits or self-citation chains. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its main postulates are the structural form of neural operator layers (identity plus compact composition with a nonlinearity) and the regularity assumptions on the nonlinearity and activation function. The false C^1-boundedness claim is a critical domain assumption that should be replaced by an explicit boundedness and global Lipschitz condition.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption C^1 maps on Hilbert spaces are bounded and globally Lipschitz (stated in Section 2).
    This is false for general C^1 maps, but it is used as a standing assumption to ensure the nonlinearity G in a neural operator layer is bounded and Lipschitz. It enters in the proofs of Lemmas 5, 7, and 8.
  • standard math GL(X) is path-connected in the operator norm topology for infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert spaces (Kuiper's theorem).
    Used in the proof of Theorem 2 to construct an isotopy connecting Id to -Id through invertible linear maps, creating the topological obstruction for finite-dimensional approximations.
  • standard math Minty-Browder theorem: a strongly monotone, hemicontinuous, coercive operator on a Hilbert space is bijective.
    Used in Lemma 1 and Lemma 3 to conclude that strongly monotone maps and their restrictions are surjective and invertible.
  • standard math Leray-Schauder degree theory and homotopy invariance for compact perturbations of the identity.
    Used in Lemma 5 and Theorem 4 to prove surjectivity of neural operator layers and to analyze the finite-dimensional maps f_t.
  • domain assumption The orthonormal basis for the residual neural operator construction includes the constant function when X = L2(D;R).
    Assumed in Corollary 1 and Lemma 11 to embed finite-rank residual networks into residual neural operators; satisfied by Fourier bases but not by all bases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can neural operators always be continuously discretized?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B65LWODV

@misc{pith2026241203393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can neural operators always be continuously discretized?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B65LWODV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03393}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the problem of discretization of neural operators between Hilbert spaces in a general framework including skip connections. We focus on bijective neural operators through the lens of diffeomorphisms in infinite dimensions. Framed using category theory, we give a no-go theorem that shows that diffeomorphisms between Hilbert spaces or Hilbert manifolds may not admit any continuous approximations by diffeomorphisms on finite-dimensional spaces, even if the approximations are nonlinear. The natural way out is the introduction of strongly monotone diffeomorphisms and layerwise strongly monotone neural operators which have continuous approximations by strongly monotone diffeomorphisms on finite-dimensional spaces. For these, one can guarantee discretization invariance, while ensuring that finite-dimensional approximations converge not only as sequences of functions, but that their representations converge in a suitable sense as well. Finally, we show that bilipschitz neural operators may always be written in the form of an alternating composition of strongly monotone neural operators, plus a simple isometry. Thus we realize a rigorous platform for discretization of a generalization of a neural operator. We also show that neural operators of this type may be approximated through the composition of finite-rank residual neural operators, where each block is strongly monotone, and may be inverted locally via iteration. We conclude by providing a quantitative approximation result for the discretization of general bilipschitz neural operators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A figure illustrating the proof ideas for Theorem 2. It represents the disconnected components of diffeo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes

    Nikola B Kovachki, Zongyi Li, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew M Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 24 0 (89): 0 1--97, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Deep learning methods for flood mapping: a review of existing applications and future research directions

    Roberto Bentivoglio, Elvin Isufi, Sebastian Nicolaas Jonkman, and Riccardo Taormina. Deep learning methods for flood mapping: a review of existing applications and future research directions. Hydrology and earth system sciences, 26 0 (16): 0 4345--4378, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Physics-informed deep neural operator networks

    Somdatta Goswami, Aniruddha Bora, Yue Yu, and George Em Karniadakis. Physics-informed deep neural operator networks. In Machine Learning in Modeling and Simulation: Methods and Applications, pages 219--254. Springer, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Fourier neural operator with learned deformations for pdes on general geometries

    Zongyi Li, Daniel Zhengyu Huang, Burigede Liu, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator with learned deformations for pdes on general geometries. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (388): 0 1--26, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence

    Hanchen Wang, Tianfan Fu, Yuanqi Du, Wenhao Gao, Kexin Huang, Ziming Liu, Payal Chandak, Shengchao Liu, Peter Van Katwyk, Andreea Deac, et al. Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature, 620 0 (7972): 0 47--60, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Integrating scientific knowledge with machine learning for engineering and environmental systems

    Jared Willard, Xiaowei Jia, Shaoming Xu, Michael Steinbach, and Vipin Kumar. Integrating scientific knowledge with machine learning for engineering and environmental systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 55 0 (4): 0 1--37, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    The reversible residual network: Backpropagation without storing activations

    Aidan N Gomez, Mengye Ren, Raquel Urtasun, and Roger B Grosse. The reversible residual network: Backpropagation without storing activations. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Universal approximation property of invertible neural networks

    Isao Ishikawa, Takeshi Teshima, Koichi Tojo, Kenta Oono, Masahiro Ikeda, and Masashi Sugiyama. Universal approximation property of invertible neural networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (287): 0 1--68, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Non-euclidean universal approximation

    Anastasis Kratsios and Ievgen Bilokopytov. Non-euclidean universal approximation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 10635--10646, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Globally injective relu networks

    Michael Puthawala, Konik Kothari, Matti Lassas, Ivan Dokmani \'c , and Maarten de Hoop. Globally injective relu networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 0 (105): 0 1--55, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Coupling-based invertible neural networks are universal diffeomorphism approximators

    Takeshi Teshima, Isao Ishikawa, Koichi Tojo, Kenta Oono, Masahiro Ikeda, and Masashi Sugiyama. Coupling-based invertible neural networks are universal diffeomorphism approximators. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 3362--3373, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks

    Leon A Gatys, Alexander S Ecker, and Matthias Bethge. Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2414--2423, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Diffusion generative models in infinite dimensions

    Gavin Kerrigan, Justin Ley, and Padhraic Smyth. Diffusion generative models in infinite dimensions. In Francisco Ruiz, Jennifer Dy, and Jan-Willem van de Meent, editors, Proceedings of The 26th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 206 of P...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Error estimates for deeponets: A deep learning framework in infinite dimensions

    Samuel Lanthaler, Siddhartha Mishra, and George E Karniadakis. Error estimates for deeponets: A deep learning framework in infinite dimensions. Transactions of Mathematics and Its Applications, 6 0 (1): 0 tnac001, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Deeponet: Learning nonlinear operators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operators

    Lu Lu, Pengzhan Jin, and George Em Karniadakis. Deeponet: Learning nonlinear operators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03193, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Model reduction and neural networks for parametric pdes

    Kaushik Bhattacharya, Bamdad Hosseini, Nikola B Kovachki, and Andrew M Stuart. Model reduction and neural networks for parametric pdes. The SMAI journal of computational mathematics, 7: 0 121--157, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    The cost-accuracy trade-off in operator learning with neural networks

    Maarten De Hoop, Daniel Zhengyu Huang, Elizabeth Qian, and Andrew M Stuart. The cost-accuracy trade-off in operator learning with neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13181, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Alberti, Matteo Santacesaria, and Silvia Sciutto

    Giovanni S. Alberti, Matteo Santacesaria, and Silvia Sciutto. Continuous generative neural networks. arXiv:2205.14627, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Globally injective and bijective neural operators

    Takashi Furuya, Michael Puthawala, Matti Lassas, and Maarten V de Hoop. Globally injective and bijective neural operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03982, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Discretization error of fourier neural operators

    Samuel Lanthaler, Andrew M Stuart, and Margaret Trautner. Discretization error of fourier neural operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02221, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Mathematical foundations of infinite-dimensional statistical models

    Evarist Gin \'e and Richard Nickl. Mathematical foundations of infinite-dimensional statistical models. Cambridge university press, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    a chter, Dmytro Perekrestenko, Philipp Grohs, and Helmut B \

    Dennis Elbr \"a chter, Dmytro Perekrestenko, Philipp Grohs, and Helmut B \"o lcskei. Deep neural network approximation theory. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 67 0 (5): 0 2581--2623, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Categorical deep learning: An algebraic theory of architectures

    Bruno Gavranovi \'c , Paul Lessard, Andrew Dudzik, Tamara von Glehn, Jo \ a o GM Ara \'u jo, and Petar Veli c kovi \'c . Categorical deep learning: An algebraic theory of architectures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15332, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    On locking and robustness in the finite element method

    Ivo Babu s ka and Manil Suri. On locking and robustness in the finite element method. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 29 0 (5): 0 1261--1293, 1992. ISSN 0036-1429. doi:10.1137/0729075. URL https://doi.org/10.1137/0729075

    1992 doi

  17. [25]

    Locking effects in the finite element approximation of plate models

    Manil Suri, Ivo Babu s ka, and Christoph Schwab. Locking effects in the finite element approximation of plate models. Math. Comp., 64 0 (210): 0 461--482, 1995. ISSN 0025-5718. doi:10.2307/2153434. URL https://doi.org/10.2307/2153434

    1995 doi

  18. [26]

    Statistical and computational inverse problems, volume 160 of Applied Mathematical Sciences

    Jari Kaipio and Erkki Somersalo. Statistical and computational inverse problems, volume 160 of Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005. ISBN 0-387-22073-9

    2005

  19. [27]

    Can one use total variation prior for edge-preserving bayesian inversion? Inverse problems, 20 0 (5): 0 1537, 2004

    Matti Lassas and Samuli Siltanen. Can one use total variation prior for edge-preserving bayesian inversion? Inverse problems, 20 0 (5): 0 1537, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Inverse problems: a bayesian perspective

    Andrew M Stuart. Inverse problems: a bayesian perspective. Acta numerica, 19: 0 451--559, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Discretization-invariant bayesian inversion and besov space priors

    Matti Lassas Saksman, Samuli Siltanen, et al. Discretization-invariant bayesian inversion and besov space priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:0901.4220, 2009

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Besov priors for B ayesian inverse problems

    Masoumeh Dashti, Stephen Harris, and Andrew Stuart. Besov priors for B ayesian inverse problems. Inverse Probl. Imaging, 6 0 (2): 0 183--200, 2012. ISSN 1930-8337. doi:10.3934/ipi.2012.6.183. URL https://doi.org/10.3934/ipi.2012.6.183

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Linear inverse problems for generalised random variables

    Markku S Lehtinen, Lassi Paivarinta, and Erkki Somersalo. Linear inverse problems for generalised random variables. Inverse Problems, 5 0 (4): 0 599, 1989

    1989

  24. [32]

    Bauschke and Patrick L

    Heinz H. Bauschke and Patrick L. Combettes. Convex analysis and monotone operator theory in H ilbert spaces . CMS Books in Mathematics/Ouvrages de Math\' e matiques de la SMC. Springer, Cham, second edition, 2017. ISBN 978-3-319-48310-8; 978-3-319-48311-5. doi:10.1007/978-3-31...

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    The nonlocal neural operator: Universal approximation

    Samuel Lanthaler, Zongyi Li, and Andrew M Stuart. The nonlocal neural operator: Universal approximation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13221, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    The homotopy type of the unitary group of hilbert space

    Nicolaas H Kuiper. The homotopy type of the unitary group of hilbert space. Topology, 3 0 (1): 0 19--30, 1965

    1965

  27. [35]

    Putnam and Aurel Wintner

    Calvin R. Putnam and Aurel Wintner. The connectedness of the orthogonal group in H ilbert space. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 37: 0 110--112, 1951. ISSN 0027-8424. doi:10.1073/pnas.37.2.110. URL https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.37.2.110

    1951 doi

  28. [36]

    R. E. Showalter. Monotone operators in B anach space and nonlinear partial differential equations , volume 49 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997. ISBN 0-8218-0500-2. doi:10.1090/surv/049. URL https://doi.org/10.1090/surv/049

    1997 doi

  29. [37]

    Tyrrell Rockafellar and Roger J.-B

    R. Tyrrell Rockafellar and Roger J.-B. Wets. Variational analysis, volume 317 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998. ISBN 3-540-62772-3. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02431-3. URL https://doi.o...

    1998 doi

  30. [38]

    Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Sorting out lipschitz function approximation

    Cem Anil, James Lucas, and Roger Grosse. Sorting out lipschitz function approximation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 291--301. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Error bounds for approximations with deep relu networks

    Dmitry Yarotsky. Error bounds for approximations with deep relu networks. Neural Networks, 94: 0 103--114, 2017. ISSN 0893-6080. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2017.07.002. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893608017301545

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Error bounds for approximations with deep R e LU neural networks in W^ s,p norms

    Ingo G\" u hring, Gitta Kutyniok, and Philipp Petersen. Error bounds for approximations with deep R e LU neural networks in W^ s,p norms. Anal. Appl. (Singap.), 18 0 (5): 0 803--859, 2020. ISSN 0219-5305,1793-6861. doi:10.1142/S0219530519410021. URL https://doi.org/10.1142/S02...

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    A nonlinear discretization theory

    Klaus B\" o hmer and Robert Schaback. A nonlinear discretization theory. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 254: 0 204--219, 2013. ISSN 0377-0427. doi:10.1016/j.cam.2013.03.029. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2013.03.029

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    Michael E. Taylor. Partial differential equations I . B asic theory , volume 115 of Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer, New York, second edition, 2011. ISBN 978-1-4419-7054-1. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7055-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7055-8

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    Trudinger

    David Gilbarg and Neil S. Trudinger. Elliptic partial differential equations of second order. Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001. ISBN 3-540-41160-7. Reprint of the 1998 edition

    2001

  37. [45]

    Martin H. Schultz. Error bounds for the R ayleigh- R itz- G alerkin method. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 27: 0 524--533, 1969. ISSN 0022-247X. doi:10.1016/0022-247X(69)90133-4. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(69)90133-4

    1969 doi

  38. [46]

    E. M. Harrell and W. J. Layton. L^2 estimates for G alerkin methods for semilinear elliptic equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 24 0 (1): 0 52--58, 1987. ISSN 0036-1429. doi:10.1137/0724005. URL https://doi.org/10.1137/0724005

    1987 doi

  39. [47]

    Numerical methods for nonlinear elliptic differential equations

    Klaus B\" o hmer. Numerical methods for nonlinear elliptic differential equations. Numerical Mathematics and Scientific Computation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010. ISBN 978-0-19-957704-0. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577040.001.0001. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof...

    2010

  40. [48]

    Putnam and Aurel Wintner

    Calvin R. Putnam and Aurel Wintner. The orthogonal group in H ilbert space. Amer. J. Math., 74: 0 52--78, 1952. ISSN 0002-9327. doi:10.2307/2372068. URL https://doi.org/10.2307/2372068

    1952 doi

  41. [49]

    Topological degree theory and applications, volume 10 of Series in Mathematical Analysis and Applications

    Donal O'Regan, Yeol Je Cho, and Yu-Qing Chen. Topological degree theory and applications, volume 10 of Series in Mathematical Analysis and Applications. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2006. ISBN 1-58488-648-X; 978-1-58488-648-8. doi:10.1201/9781420011487. URL https://doi....

    2006 doi

  42. [50]

    Philippe G. Ciarlet. Linear and Nonlinear Functional Analysis with Applications. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, USA, 2013. ISBN 1611972582

    2013

  43. [51]

    R. I. Ka c urovski . Nonlinear monotone operators in B anach spaces. Uspehi Mat. Nauk, 23 0 (2(140)): 0 121--168, 1968. ISSN 0042-1316

    1968

  44. [52]

    Set theory

    Thomas Jech. Set theory. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 1997. ISBN 3-540-63048-1. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-22400-7. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-22400-7

    1997 doi

  45. [53]

    Michor and David Mumford

    Peter W. Michor and David Mumford. A zoo of diffeomorphism groups on R ^n . Ann. Global Anal. Geom., 44 0 (4): 0 529--540, 2013. ISSN 0232-704X. doi:10.1007/s10455-013-9380-2. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10455-013-9380-2

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    Martin and Patrizio Neff

    Robert J. Martin and Patrizio Neff. Minimal geodesics on gl(n) for left-invariant, right-o(n)-invariant riemannian metrics. Journal of Geometric Mechanics, 8 0 (3): 0 323--357, 2016. ISSN 1941-4889

    2016

  47. [55]

    Geometric methods and applications, volume 38 of Texts in Applied Mathematics

    Jean Gallier. Geometric methods and applications, volume 38 of Texts in Applied Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001. ISBN 0-387-95044-3. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0137-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0137-0. For computer science and engineering

    2001 doi

  48. [56]

    Error bounds for approximations with deep relu neural networks in w s, p norms

    Ingo G \"u hring, Gitta Kutyniok, and Philipp Petersen. Error bounds for approximations with deep relu neural networks in w s, p norms. Analysis and Applications, 18 0 (05): 0 803--859, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Approximations with deep neural networks in sobolev time-space

    Ahmed Abdeljawad and Philipp Grohs. Approximations with deep neural networks in sobolev time-space. Analysis and Applications, 20 0 (03): 0 499--541, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.