Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 cited by

Optimal Convergence Rates for Neural Operators

T0 review · 1 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-layer neural operator trained by early-stopped gradient descent achieves the same excess-risk rate as minimax-optimal RKHS nonparametric regression, provided the true operator satisfies a source condition relative to the…

desk verdict Neural operator NTK bounds are real, but the advertised sqrt(n_U) second-stage sample complexity is not supported by the paper's own conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17518 v1 pith:FTKGCEUK submitted 2024-12-23 stat.ML cs.LG

Mike Nguyen , Nicole Mücke This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LG MSC 62G0868T07
keywords neuraloperatorstangentkerneloperatorlearninggradientdescentminimaxoptimalratesreproducingHilbertspacesourceconditionPDEsolution
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

Two-layer neural operators trained by early-stopped gradient descent can learn maps between function spaces, such as PDE solution operators, at the same convergence speed as the best nonparametric RKHS methods. The paper establishes an excess-risk bound of order $n_U^{-r/(2r+b)}$ when the true operator satisfies a H\"older-type source condition and the NTK integral operator has an effective dimension decaying like $\lambda^{-b}$. It also gives explicit minimum numbers of hidden neurons and evaluation points needed to realize the rate, and proves that any operator approximable by a neural operator is approximable in the vector-valued RKHS of the neural tangent kernel, which justifies restricting attention to the NTK regime. The rates match known minimax lower bounds in the RKHS framework.

What carries the argument

The central object is the vector-valued neural tangent kernel (vvNTK) of a two-layer neural operator, $K_M(u,u') = \sum_{p=1}^P \partial_p G_{\theta_0}(u) \otimes \partial_p G_{\theta_0}(u')$, together with its infinite-width limit $K_\infty$ and the associated integral operator $L_\infty G = \int_\mathcal{U} K_\infty(u,\cdot)G(u)\,\mu_u(du)$. The source condition $G^* = L_\infty^r H^*$ measures the smoothness of the target operator, and the effective dimension $N_{L_\infty}(\lambda) = \mathrm{tr}(L_\infty(L_\infty+\lambda I)^{-1}) \le c_b\lambda^{-b}$ measures the capacity of the hypothesis space. Early-stopped gradient descent acts as spectral filtering on this operator, reproducing the classical bias-variance trade-off of RKHS regression, while the finite-width and finite-discretization errors are absorbed by taking $M$ and $n_X$ large enough.

What would settle it

Find a target operator $G^*$ that is approximable by neural operators but not in $\mathrm{ran}(L_\infty^r)$ for any $r>0$, train the two-layer neural operator with early-stopped gradient descent, and check whether the empirical excess risk decays like $n_U^{-r/(2r+b)}$; slower decay would locate the failure in the source condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.5 and Corollary 3.6: under Assumptions 2.1, 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4, early-stopped gradient descent with stopping time $T = n_U^{1/(2r+b)}$ achieves $\lVert G_{\theta_T} - G^*\rVert_{L^2(\mu_u)} \le C\log^3(2/\delta)\, n_U^{-r/(2r+b)}$ with high probability. The proof splits the excess risk into three errors: the Taylor remainder from linearizing the neural operator around its initialization, the finite-width and finite-discretization error, and the kernel gradient descent generalization error. The first is controlled by showing the weights remain in a ball around the initialization, the second by choosing the width $M$ and the number of second-stage samples $n_X$ large enough, and the third by spectral filtering estimates. The paper therefore claims that a shallow neural operator trained by gradient descent is a statistically optimal estimator in the vvNTK-RKHS class, and the 1D Poisson experiments illustrate the predicted plateau at $M \sim n_X \sim T \sim \sqrt{n_U}$ in the well-specified case.

Load-bearing premise

The whole rate rests on Assumption 3.3: the true operator $G^*$ must lie in the image of a power of the NTK integral operator, $G^* = L_\infty^r H^*$ with $\lVert H^*\rVert \le R$, and this membership is not verified from data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With enough neurons and second-stage samples, a two-layer neural operator trained by early-stopped gradient descent is a minimax-optimal estimator for learning PDE solution operators in the NTK regime.
  • The required width grows polynomially with the sample size: $M \gtrsim T$ for $r<1/2$, $M \gtrsim T^{1+b(2r-1)}$ for $1/2 \le r < 1$, and $M \gtrsim T^{2r}$ for $r>1$.
  • The number of second-stage samples only needs to scale roughly as $T^{2r}\log^2 T$ in the relevant regime, so discretization is not the bottleneck when the smoothness parameter $r$ is small.
  • In the well-specified case $r=1/2$, $b=1$, the rate is $n_U^{-1/4}$ with only $O(\sqrt{n_U})$ neurons and $O(\sqrt{n_U})$ second-stage samples.
  • Stopping at $T = n_U^{1/(2r+b)}$ is the right schedule: before that the risk decreases at each step with high probability, and at that point the excess risk reaches the minimax-optimal rate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The source condition $G^* \in \mathrm{ran}(L_\infty^r)$ is not checked by any data-dependent procedure in the paper, so a practitioner would need to justify it from the structure of the target operator before quoting the rate.
  • Because the rates match RKHS minimax bounds, the paper suggests that neural operators inherit the statistical limits of kernel methods; their practical advantage is architectural flexibility rather than faster statistical convergence.
  • The same error decomposition should extend to deep or Fourier neural operators whenever their tangent kernels converge to a limiting kernel and their finite-width gradients are Lipschitz; verifying that is a direct next step.
  • The Poisson experiments test only one smooth, well-specified example; a nonlinear PDE with rough inputs would be a sharper check of whether the predicted $M$, $n_X$, and $T$ requirements are tight.
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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper studies two-layer neural operators trained by gradient descent in the neural tangent kernel (NTK) regime. It defines a vector-valued NTK and its RKHS, proves that any operator approximable by a neural operator with parameters near initialization is also approximable by an element of this RKHS (Theorem 3.2), and then analyzes early-stopped gradient descent. Under a Hölder source condition (Assumption 3.3) and an effective-dimension condition (Assumption 3.4), Theorem 3.5 gives a high-probability bound on the excess risk in terms of the stopping time T, the number of neurons M, the number of first-stage samples n_U, and the number of second-stage discretization points n_X. Choosing T = n_U^{1/(2r+b)} yields the rate n_U^{-r/(2r+b)} (Corollary 3.6), which is minimax optimal in the RKHS framework. Theorem 3.7 and Corollary 3.8 provide bounds on the weight deviation B_τ. A numerical illustration on a one-dimensional Poisson equation is included. The proofs are assembled from an error decomposition into Taylor, discretization, and kernel gradient descent errors, with many technical lemmas in the appendix.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper would show that two-layer neural operators in the NTK regime achieve the same minimax-optimal rates as RKHS-based nonparametric regression, with explicit bounds on the required width and discretization size. The paper's strengths include a clean error decomposition, a nontrivial approximation theorem linking neural operators to the vvRKHS, and a derivation that is clearly not fitted to data. The main advertised sample-complexity claim for the well-specified case is, however, not supported by the paper's own sufficient conditions, which materially affects the paper's central message. The mathematical scaffolding is mostly solid, but the explicit 'O(√n_U) second-stage samples' claim needs correction, so the paper requires major revision.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3.1 (after Corollary 3.6); Corollary 3.8(1); Theorem 3.5; Theorem 3.7]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: rates follow from standard source/capacity assumptions plus an independently proven prior theorem; the n_X=O(sqrt(n_U)) remark conflicts with the paper's own Corollary 3.8 but is a proof gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The claimed rates are not circular. Theorem 3.5 starts from Assumptions 2.1, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4 plus the weight-localization condition (3.4) and obtains the excess-risk bound through the three-term decomposition (B.1): the Taylor error (Prop. B.2), the linearization/discretization error (Thm B.4), and the kernel gradient descent error (Prop. B.5). The source condition (3.1) and eigenvalue decay (3.2) are a priori smoothness and capacity assumptions, not consequences of the target bound. The only load-bearing external input is Proposition B.5, quoted from the authors' own Nguyen and Muecke (2023, Thm A.4); because that is a published theorem with its own proof under the same stated assumptions and not re-derived from the present claim, it counts as independent evidence under the review rules, and self-citation alone is not circularity. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions. Separate from circularity, the paper's advertised well-specified sample complexity n_X=O(sqrt(n_U)) is inconsistent with its own Corollary 3.8(1), which requires n_X >= C T^(1+b) log^3(1/delta) = C n_U for b=1, T=sqrt(n_U); this is a correctness gap in the proof, not a definitional reduction, and therefore does not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on source and capacity assumptions plus imported NTK and spectral regularization results. No new entities are introduced. The only hand-chosen numerical parameter is the NTK output-layer initialization scale τ, which affects the kernel and all constants. The source condition and effective dimension assumptions are the main domain assumptions that cannot be verified from data.

free parameters (1)
  • output-layer initialization scale τ = τ > 0, unspecified in practice
    The NTK kernel K∞ and all bounds depend on τ through κ and the kernel definition; the paper treats τ as a fixed constant but gives no guidance for choosing it, and it is a hand-chosen hyperparameter rather than a data-fitted constant.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Activation regularity (Assumption 2.1): σ has bounded first and second derivatives and Lipschitz second derivative.
    Used for Taylor expansion of the network and Lipschitz bounds on gradients; standard for NTK analyses but excludes ReLU.
  • domain assumption Data and operator boundedness (Assumption 3.1): input/output function spaces are bounded, |v(x)| ≤ 1 and ||J(u)(x)||_1 ≤ 1.
    Keeps the NTK finite and justifies point evaluations in the gradient iteration; if violated, constants and rates change.
  • domain assumption Source condition (Assumption 3.3): G* = L∞^r H* with ||H*|| ≤ R.
    This is the load-bearing smoothness premise; the rates in Corollary 3.6 only hold for target operators in the range of the r-th power of the NTK integral operator.
  • domain assumption Effective dimension bound (Assumption 3.4): N_{L∞}(λ) ≤ c_b λ^{-b}.
    Controls the eigenvalue decay of the NTK operator and enters the optimal rate exponent; cannot be checked from data in practice.
  • domain assumption Approximability premise in Theorem 3.2: there exists a neural operator Gθ* within ε of G* with ||θ* - θ0|| ≤ R.
    Used to justify that operators approximable by neural operators near initialization can be approximated by the vvRKHS; it motivates but does not imply the exact source condition.
  • standard math Validity of imported spectral regularization bounds from Nguyen and Mücke (2023), Rudi and Rosasco (2017), Caponnetto and De Vito (2007).
    The central error term III and several operator concentration inequalities are cited from prior work rather than reproved; the present results inherit those proofs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Convergence Rates for Neural Operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTKGCEUK

@misc{pith2026241217518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Convergence Rates for Neural Operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTKGCEUK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17518}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce the neural tangent kernel (NTK) regime for two-layer neural operators and analyze their generalization properties. For early-stopped gradient descent (GD), we derive fast convergence rates that are known to be minimax optimal within the framework of non-parametric regression in reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHS). We provide bounds on the number of hidden neurons and the number of second-stage samples necessary for generalization. To justify our NTK regime, we additionally show that any operator approximable by a neural operator can also be approximated by an operator from the RKHS. A key application of neural operators is learning surrogate maps for the solution operators of partial differential equations (PDEs). We consider the standard Poisson equation to illustrate our theoretical findings with simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17518 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Depiction of the architecture of our operator class. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A random realization of a polynomial u, its solution v and the estimator NO(u). As shown in Figures 5 and 6, after reaching nX = M = T = √ nU = 20, there is no further significant improvement in the neural operator’s performance. For additional numerical simulations that underscore 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The logarithmic test-error for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The test-error for different choices of M and fixed T = 50 and nx = 50 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Random feature approximation for general spectral methods

    stat.ML 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Under source conditions with smoothness r>0 and capacity 2r+b>1, random features achieve minimax-optimal rates for any spectral regularization method with qualification at least r∨1.

  2. Continuous Representation Methods, Theories, and Applications: An Overview and Perspectives

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A survey organizing continuous representation methods into parametric models, structural modeling, theory, and applications, with a curated open-source reference repository.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A. B. Aleksandrov and V. V. Peller. Operator h\"older--zygmund functions, 2009. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3049

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation

    Vijay Badrinarayanan, Alex Kendall, and Roberto Cipolla. Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 39 0 (12): 0 2481--2495, 2017. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2644615

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Functional linear regression with functional response

    David Benatia, Marine Carrasco, and Jean-Pierre Florens. Functional linear regression with functional response. Journal of econometrics, 201 0 (2): 0 269--291, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Kovachki, and Andrew M

    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. doi:10.5802/smai-jcm.74. URL https://smai-jcm.centre-mersenne.org/articles/10.5802/smai-jcm.74/

    doi:10.5802/smai-jcm.74 2021

  5. [5]

    Deep equals shallow for relu networks in kernel regimes

    Alberto Bietti and Francis Bach. Deep equals shallow for relu networks in kernel regimes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14397, 2020

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    On the inductive bias of neural tangent kernels

    Alberto Bietti and Julien Mairal. On the inductive bias of neural tangent kernels. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Optimal rates for regularization of statistical inverse learning problems

    Gilles Blanchard and Nicole M \"u cke. Optimal rates for regularization of statistical inverse learning problems. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 18: 0 971--1013, 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    A mathematical guide to operator learning, 2023

    Nicolas Boullé and Alex Townsend. A mathematical guide to operator learning, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14688

    arXiv 2023

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Caponnetto and Ernesto De Vito

    A. Caponnetto and Ernesto De Vito. Optimal rates for the regularized least-squares algorithm. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 7: 0 331--368, 2007

    2007

  2. [10]

    Carmeli, E

    C. Carmeli, E. De Vito, and V. Umanità A. Toigo. Vector valued reproducing kernel hilbert spaces and universality, 2008

    2008

  3. [11]

    Reproducing kernel hilbert spaces and mercer theorem, 2005

    Claudio Carmeli, Ernesto De Vito, and Alessandro Toigo. Reproducing kernel hilbert spaces and mercer theorem, 2005

    2005

  4. [12]

    Deep neural tangent kernel and laplace kernel have the same rkhs

    Lin Chen and Sheng Xu. Deep neural tangent kernel and laplace kernel have the same rkhs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10683, 2020

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A generalized neural tangent kernel analysis for two-layer neural networks

    Zixiang Chen, Yuan Cao, Quanquan Gu, and Tong Zhang. A generalized neural tangent kernel analysis for two-layer neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 13363--13373, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Dashti, Masoumehand Stuart

    Andrew M. Dashti, Masoumehand Stuart. The Bayesian Approach to Inverse Problems, pages 311--428. Springer International Publishing, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Spectra of the conjugate kernel and neural tangent kernel for linear-width neural networks

    Zhou Fan and Zhichao Wang. Spectra of the conjugate kernel and neural tangent kernel for linear-width neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 0 7710--7721, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Fanaskov and I

    V. Fanaskov and I. Oseledets. Spectral neural operators, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10573

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Functional regression models with functional response: a new approach and a comparative study

    Manuel Febrero-Bande, Manuel Oviedo-de la Fuente, Mohammad Darbalaei, and Morteza Amini. Functional regression models with functional response: a new approach and a comparative study. Computational Statistics, pages 1--27, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    On the similarity between the laplace and neural tangent kernels

    Amnon Geifman, Abhay Yadav, Yoni Kasten, Meirav Galun, David Jacobs, and Basri Ronen. On the similarity between the laplace and neural tangent kernels. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 1451--1461, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Gin, Daniel E

    Craig R. Gin, Daniel E. Shea, Steven L. Brunton, and J. Nathan Kutz. Deepgreen: Deep learning of green's functions for nonlinear boundary value problems, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Neural tangent kernel: A survey

    Eugene Golikov, Eduard Pokonechnyy, and Vladimir Korviakov. Neural tangent kernel: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.13614, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    An overview on machine learning methods for partial differential equations: from physics informed neural networks to deep operator learning, 2024

    Lukas Gonon, Arnulf Jentzen, Benno Kuckuck, Siyu Liang, Adrian Riekert, and Philippe von Wurstemberger. An overview on machine learning methods for partial differential equations: from physics informed neural networks to deep operator learning, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/...

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Deep Learning

    Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Conditional mean embeddings as regressors

    Steffen Gr \"u new \"a lder, Guy Lever, Luca Baldassarre, Sam Patterson, Arthur Gretton, and Massimilano Pontil. Conditional mean embeddings as regressors. In Proceedings of the 29th International Coference on International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1803--1810, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    Nelsen, and Margaret Trautner

    Daniel Zhengyu Huang, Nicholas H. Nelsen, and Margaret Trautner. An operator learning perspective on parameter-to-observable maps, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite element analysis

    Thomas JR Hughes. The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite element analysis. Courier Corporation, 2003

    2003

  18. [26]

    Neural tangent kernel: Convergence and generalization in neural networks

    Arthur Jacot, Cl \'e ment Hongler, and Franck Gabriel. Neural tangent kernel: Convergence and generalization in neural networks. In NeurIPS, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Kernel neural operator for efficient solving PDEs

    Bao Kaijun, Qian Xu, Liu Ziyuan, Wang Haifeng, and Song Songhe. Kernel neural operator for efficient solving PDEs . AIP Conference Proceedings, 3094 0 (1): 0 500042, 06 2024. ISSN 0094-243X. doi:10.1063/5.0210744. URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0210744

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes, 2022

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A rigorous theory of conditional mean embeddings

    Ilja Klebanov, Ingmar Schuster, and Timothy John Sullivan. A rigorous theory of conditional mean embeddings. SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 2 0 (3): 0 583--606, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    On universal approximation and error bounds for fourier neural operators

    Nikola Kovachki, Samuel Lanthaler, and Siddhartha Mishra. On universal approximation and error bounds for fourier neural operators. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22 0 (290): 0 1--76, 2021. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v22/21-0806.html

    2021

  23. [31]

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

    Nikola Kovachki, Zongyi Li, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Neural operator: learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes. 24 0 (1), 2024 a . ISSN 1532-4435

    2024

  24. [32]

    Kovachki, Zong-Yi Li, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew M

    Nikola B. Kovachki, Zong-Yi 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 89:1--89:97, 2023. URL https://api....

    2023

  25. [33]

    Data complexity estimates for operator learning

    Nikola B Kovachki, Samuel Lanthaler, and Hrushikesh Mhaskar. Data complexity estimates for operator learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15992, 2024 b

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kovachki, Samuel Lanthaler, and Andrew M

    Nikola B. Kovachki, Samuel Lanthaler, and Andrew M. Stuart. Operator learning: Algorithms and analysis, 2024 c

    2024

  27. [35]

    Operator learning with pca-net: upper and lower complexity bounds

    Samuel Lanthaler. Operator learning with pca-net: upper and lower complexity bounds. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (318): 0 1--67, 2023. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v24/23-0478.html

    2023

  28. [36]

    Wide neural networks of any depth evolve as linear models under gradient descent

    Jaehoon Lee, Lechao Xiao, Samuel Schoenholz, Yasaman Bahri, Roman Novak, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, and Jeffrey Pennington. Wide neural networks of any depth evolve as linear models under gradient descent. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Optimal rates for regularized conditional mean embedding learning

    Zhu Li, Dimitri Meunier, Mattes Mollenhauer, and Arthur Gretton. Optimal rates for regularized conditional mean embedding learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 4433--4445, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Towards optimal sobolev norm rates for the vector-valued regularized least-squares algorithm

    Zhu Li, Dimitri Meunier, Mattes Mollenhauer, and Arthur Gretton. Towards optimal sobolev norm rates for the vector-valued regularized least-squares algorithm. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25 0 (181): 0 1--51, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Neural operator: Graph kernel network for partial differential equations, 2020

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Neural operator: Graph kernel network for partial differential equations, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.03485

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Borislavov Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL htt...

    2021

  33. [41]

    Optimal convergence for distributed learning with stochastic gradient methods and spectral algorithms, 2018

    Junhong Lin and Volkan Cevher. Optimal convergence for distributed learning with stochastic gradient methods and spectral algorithms, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.07226

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Optimal rates for spectral algorithms with least-squares regression over hilbert spaces

    Junhong Lin, Alessandro Rudi, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Volkan Cevher. Optimal rates for spectral algorithms with least-squares regression over hilbert spaces. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 48 0 (3): 0 868--890, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    Jakeman, Akil Narayan, Shandian Zhe, and Varun Shankar

    Matthew Lowery, John Turnage, Zachary Morrow, John D. Jakeman, Akil Narayan, Shandian Zhe, and Varun Shankar. Kernel neural operators (knos) for scalable, memory-efficient, geometrically-flexible operator learning, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00809

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators

    Lu Lu, Pengzhan Jin, Guofei Pang, Zhongqiang Zhang, and George Karniadakis. Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3: 0 218--229, 03 2021. doi:10.1038/s42256-021-00302-5

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Exponential convergence of deep operator networks for elliptic partial differential equations

    Carlo Marcati and Christoph Schwab. Exponential convergence of deep operator networks for elliptic partial differential equations. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 61 0 (3): 0 1513–1545, jun 2023. ISSN 1095-7170. doi:10.1137/21m1465718. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/21M1465718

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Optimal rates for vector-valued spectral regularization learning algorithms

    Dimitri Meunier, Zikai Shen, Mattes Mollenhauer, Arthur Gretton, and Zhu Li. Optimal rates for vector-valued spectral regularization learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14778, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Foundations of Machine Learning

    Mehryar Mohri, Afshin Rostamizadeh, and Ameet Talwalkar. Foundations of Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2 edition, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    Learning linear operators: Infinite-dimensional regression as a well-behaved non-compact inverse problem

    Mattes Mollenhauer, Nicole M \"u cke, and TJ Sullivan. Learning linear operators: Infinite-dimensional regression as a well-behaved non-compact inverse problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.08875, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Functional regression

    Jeffrey S Morris. Functional regression. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 2 0 (1): 0 321--359, 2015

    2015

  42. [50]

    How many neurons do we need? a refined analysis for shallow networks trained with gradient descent, 2023

    Mike Nguyen and Nicole Mücke. How many neurons do we need? a refined analysis for shallow networks trained with gradient descent, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.08044

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Random feature approximation for general spectral methods, 2023

    Mike Nguyen and Nicole M \"u cke. Random feature approximation for general spectral methods, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Optimal rates for averaged stochastic gradient descent under neural tangent kernel regime

    Atsushi Nitanda and Taiji Suzuki. Optimal rates for averaged stochastic gradient descent under neural tangent kernel regime. In International Conference on Learning Representations. arXiv, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    A measure-theoretic approach to kernel conditional mean embeddings

    Junhyung Park and Krikamol Muandet. A measure-theoretic approach to kernel conditional mean embeddings. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 0 21247--21259, 2020

    2020

  46. [54]

    Statistical optimality of stochastic gradient descent on hard learning problems through multiple passes, 2018

    Loucas Pillaud-Vivien, Alessandro Rudi, and Francis Bach. Statistical optimality of stochastic gradient descent on hard learning problems through multiple passes, 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    Toward a better understanding of fourier neural operators from a spectral perspective, 2024

    Shaoxiang Qin, Fuyuan Lyu, Wenhui Peng, Dingyang Geng, Ju Wang, Xing Tang, Sylvie Leroyer, Naiping Gao, Xue Liu, and Liangzhu Leon Wang. Toward a better understanding of fourier neural operators from a spectral perspective, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.07200

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G.E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378: 0 686--707, 2019. ISSN 0021-9991. doi...

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    Modern non-linear function-on-function regression

    Aniruddha Rajendra Rao and Matthew Reimherr. Modern non-linear function-on-function regression. Statistics and Computing, 33 0 (6): 0 130, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    Generalization properties of learning with random features

    Alessandro Rudi and Lorenzo Rosasco. Generalization properties of learning with random features. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    Deep learning in high dimension: Neural network approximation of analytic functions in l^2( R ^d, _d) , 2021

    Christoph Schwab and Jakob Zech. Deep learning in high dimension: Neural network approximation of analytic functions in l^2( R ^d, _d) , 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.07080

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Mathematical Statistics

    Jun Shao. Mathematical Statistics. Springer-Verlag New York Inc, 2nd edition, 2003

    2003

  53. [61]

    Graph neural network operators: A review

    Anil Sharma, Suresh Singh, and Sameer Ratna. Graph neural network operators: A review. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 83: 0 23413--23436, 2024. doi:10.1007/s11042-023-16440-4

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    Nonlinear functional regression by functional deep neural network with kernel embedding

    Zhongjie Shi, Jun Fan, Linhao Song, Ding-Xuan Zhou, and Johan AK Suykens. Nonlinear functional regression by functional deep neural network with kernel embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02890, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Neural-kernel conditional mean embeddings

    Eiki Shimizu, Kenji Fukumizu, and Dino Sejdinovic. Neural-kernel conditional mean embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10859, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Support vector machines

    Ingo Steinwart and Andreas Christmann. Support vector machines. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    2008

  57. [65]

    Gilbert Strang and George J. Fix. An Analysis of the Finite Element Method. Prentice Hall, 1973

    1973

  58. [66]

    Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation, volume xii

    Albert Tarantola. Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation, volume xii. 01 2005. ISBN 978-0-89871-572-9. doi:10.1137/1.9780898717921

    2005 doi

  59. [67]

    Joel A. Tropp. User-friendly tail bounds for sums of random matrices. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 12 0 (4): 0 389--434, 2011

    2011

  60. [68]

    Learning the solution operator of parametric partial differential equations with physics-informed deeponets

    Sifan Wang, Hanwen Wang, and Paris Perdikaris. Learning the solution operator of parametric partial differential equations with physics-informed deeponets. Science Advances, 7 0 (40): 0 eabi8605, 2021. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abi8605. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sci...

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    Convergence analysis of wide shallow neural operators within the framework of neural tangent kernel

    Xianliang Xu, Ye Li, and Zhongyi Huang. Convergence analysis of wide shallow neural operators within the framework of neural tangent kernel. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05545, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A type of generalization error induced by initialization in deep neural networks

    Yaoyu Zhang, Zhi-Qin John Xu, Tao Luo, and Zheng Ma. A type of generalization error induced by initialization in deep neural networks. In Mathematical and Scientific Machine Learning, pages 144--164. PMLR, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

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