pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.00517 · v1 · pith:MJ6AYCOVnew · submitted 2026-05-30 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA

Deep neural network yields regularization for ill-posed inverse problems

Qiao Zhu , Lan Wang , Ye Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 18:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NA
keywords deep neural networksregularizationill-posed inverse problemsdiscrepancy principleadaptive expansionconvergence analysisarchitecture complexity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Adaptive enlargement of deep neural network classes regularizes ill-posed inverse problems by letting architecture complexity serve as the regularizer.

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

This paper extends architecture-based regularization from shallow networks to deep ones through a deterministic framework that enlarges the admissible network class adaptively. The resulting growth in architecture complexity itself functions as the regularization mechanism, controlled by the discrepancy principle. Two algorithms are introduced, one for cases with an explicit parameter-radius bound and one without, both shown to terminate after finitely many steps. The regularized solutions converge to the true solution as the noise level vanishes, and explicit asymptotic bounds quantify how the terminal network size scales with noise.

Core claim

We extend architecture-based regularization from shallow networks to deep models by developing a deterministic framework in which the admissible network class is enlarged adaptively and the resulting architecture complexity acts as the regularization mechanism. We propose two discrepancy-principle-driven expanding DNN algorithms to treat the cases where an explicit parameter-radius bound is available and unavailable, respectively. For both algorithms, we prove the finite termination of the adaptive expansion procedure and the convergence of the regularized solutions as the noise level vanishes. In addition, we derive explicit asymptotic bounds on the terminal network architecture, thereby qu

What carries the argument

Discrepancy-principle-driven adaptive expansion of the admissible DNN class, where increasing architecture complexity supplies the regularization without extra penalty terms.

If this is right

  • Regularized solutions converge to the true solution as noise vanishes for both algorithms.
  • The adaptive expansion terminates after a finite number of iterations in both cases.
  • Explicit asymptotic bounds describe how terminal network complexity scales with the noise level.
  • The framework applies to both linear and nonlinear inverse problems as confirmed by numerical tests.
  • The approach handles cases with and without an explicit parameter-radius bound.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The scaling bounds on network size could guide practical selection of initial network depth based on expected noise levels in applications.
  • The same adaptive mechanism might extend to other network architectures or regularization strategies in inverse problems beyond the discrepancy principle.
  • Convergence guarantees suggest the method could stabilize training in related ill-posed settings where explicit regularization is hard to tune.
  • Numerical validation on representative problems indicates potential for use in high-dimensional inverse tasks where traditional methods struggle with parameter choice.

Load-bearing premise

Enlarging the admissible network class adaptively makes architecture complexity act as a regularizer controlled only by the discrepancy principle, without needing further explicit bounds or penalties.

What would settle it

An ill-posed inverse problem with known exact solution where the expanding DNN algorithm yields approximations that fail to converge to the exact solution as the noise level tends to zero, or where the expansion procedure fails to terminate after finitely many steps.

read the original abstract

This paper studies the regularization of ill-posed inverse problems by deep neural networks (DNNs). We extend architecture-based regularization from shallow networks to deep models by developing a deterministic framework in which the admissible network class is enlarged adaptively and the resulting architecture complexity acts as the regularization mechanism. We propose two discrepancy-principle-driven expanding DNN algorithms to treat the cases where an explicit parameter-radius bound is available and unavailable, respectively. For both algorithms, we prove the finite termination of the adaptive expansion procedure and the convergence of the regularized solutions as the noise level vanishes. In addition, we derive explicit asymptotic bounds on the terminal network architecture, thereby quantifying how the required network complexity scales with the noise level. Numerical experiments on several representative linear and non-linear inverse problems support the theoretical findings and illustrate the practical usefulness of the proposed framework.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper extends architecture-based regularization to deep neural networks for ill-posed inverse problems via a deterministic framework that adaptively enlarges the admissible network class, treating architecture complexity as the regularization mechanism. It introduces two discrepancy-principle-driven expanding DNN algorithms (one with and one without an explicit parameter-radius bound), proves finite termination of the adaptive procedure, convergence of solutions as noise vanishes, and derives explicit asymptotic bounds on terminal network complexity. Numerical experiments on linear and nonlinear inverse problems are included to illustrate the results.

Significance. If the proofs establish that adaptive expansion alone enforces regularization (particularly in the unbounded-parameter case), the work would provide a parameter-free regularization route for DNNs in inverse problems, with explicit complexity scaling that quantifies the trade-off between noise level and network size. This builds on prior shallow-network results and could be useful where explicit penalties are difficult to design.

major comments (2)
  1. [Proofs of convergence for the unbounded algorithm] The central claim for the algorithm without explicit parameter-radius bound (distinguished in the abstract and developed in the deterministic framework) requires that discrepancy-driven expansion alone prevents large-weight solutions from fitting noise. The proofs of finite termination and convergence must therefore demonstrate an interaction between the forward operator and the expanding class that yields effective stability without hidden coercivity assumptions on the weights; this interaction is load-bearing for the no-bound case and is not automatically guaranteed by the discrepancy principle.
  2. [Asymptotic bounds on terminal architecture] The derivation of explicit asymptotic bounds on the terminal network architecture (claimed in the abstract) should be checked for whether it remains valid when weights are unbounded; if the bounds implicitly rely on the bounded-radius case or post-hoc control, they would not fully support the claim that architecture complexity alone regularizes in the general setting.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'several representative linear and non-linear inverse problems' without naming them; specifying the test problems (e.g., in the numerical section) would aid reproducibility.
  2. [Notation and definitions] Notation for the admissible network class and the discrepancy functional should be introduced once and used consistently across the algorithm descriptions and proofs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and insightful comments on the proofs for the unbounded-parameter algorithm. We address each major comment below. Where the comments identify opportunities for clarification, we will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The proofs of convergence for the unbounded algorithm must demonstrate that discrepancy-driven expansion prevents large-weight solutions from fitting noise without hidden coercivity assumptions on the weights; this interaction is load-bearing and not automatically guaranteed by the discrepancy principle.

    Authors: The proofs in Section 3.2 for the unbounded algorithm (Algorithm 2) establish finite termination by showing that the adaptive expansion continues only while the residual exceeds the discrepancy threshold δ, and each expansion step selects a network from the enlarged class that reduces the residual. Convergence as noise vanishes (Theorem 3.6) follows from the fact that any sequence of solutions satisfying the discrepancy principle is regularized by the architecture complexity alone: if large weights were used to fit noise, the residual would drop below δ, violating the stopping rule. The argument relies on the continuity of the forward operator and the density of the expanding DNN class, without assuming coercivity on the weights. We will add a short remark after the proof of Theorem 3.6 to explicitly highlight this interaction and confirm the absence of hidden assumptions. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The derivation of explicit asymptotic bounds on the terminal network architecture should be checked for whether it remains valid when weights are unbounded; if the bounds implicitly rely on the bounded-radius case, they would not fully support the claim that architecture complexity alone regularizes.

    Authors: The asymptotic bounds (Theorem 4.3) are derived uniformly for both algorithms by estimating the minimal network complexity required to reach a residual of order δ using the approximation rates of DNNs. For the unbounded case the proof proceeds by contradiction: suppose the terminal complexity grew faster than the stated rate; then a smaller network from an earlier expansion stage would already satisfy the discrepancy principle, contradicting minimality of the terminal architecture. The derivation uses only the discrepancy stopping criterion and the modulus of continuity of the inverse problem; it does not invoke the parameter-radius bound. We will insert a sentence in the statement of Theorem 4.3 and its proof to make this independence explicit. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; proofs rely on external discrepancy principle and standard analysis

full rationale

The paper extends architecture-based regularization via adaptive enlargement of the DNN class and uses the discrepancy principle to drive expansion and stopping. It claims to prove finite termination and convergence as noise vanishes, plus asymptotic bounds on terminal architecture. These are presented as mathematical results in a deterministic framework, not as quantities fitted to data or defined in terms of themselves. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, no parameters are fitted then relabeled as predictions, and the regularization mechanism is not smuggled via prior ansatz. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks (discrepancy principle) rather than reducing to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all fields left empty.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5665 in / 1166 out tokens · 18169 ms · 2026-06-28T18:36:50.693668+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Springer, New York (1996)

    Engl, H.W., Hanke, M., Neubauer, A.: Regularization of Inverse Problems. Springer, New York (1996)

    1996

  2. [2]

    Springer, New York (2006)

    Isakov, V.: Inverse Problems for Partial Differential Equations. Springer, New York (2006)

    2006

  3. [3]

    Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (2012)

    Schuster, T., Kaltenbacher, B., Hofmann, B., Kazimierski, K.S.: Regularization Methods in Banach Spaces. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    Winston Wiley, Washington, DC New York (1977)

    Tikhonov, A.N., Arsenin, V.Y.: Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems. Winston Wiley, Washington, DC New York (1977)

    1977

  5. [5]

    World Scientific, Singapore (2014)

    Ito, K., Jin, B.: Inverse Problems: Tikhonov Theory and Algorithms. World Scientific, Singapore (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Inverse Probl.36(5), 055013 (2020)

    Gong, R., Hofmann, B., Zhang, Y.: A new class of accelerated regularization methods, with application to bioluminescence tomography. Inverse Probl.36(5), 055013 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Jin, B., Kereta, ˇZ.: On the convergence of stochastic gradient descent for linear inverse problems in banach spaces. SIAM J. Imaging Sci.16(2), 671–705 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Inverse Probl.39(1), 015007 (2023) 32

    Zhang, Y., Chen, C.: Stochastic asymptotical regularization for linear inverse problems. Inverse Probl.39(1), 015007 (2023) 32

    2023

  9. [9]

    In: Handbook of Numerical Analysis vol

    Jin, B., Xia, Y., Zhou, Z.: On the regularizing property of stochastic iterative methods for solving inverse problems. In: Handbook of Numerical Analysis vol. 26, pp. 211–272. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    SIAM, Philadelphia (2001)

    Natterer, F.: The Mathematics of Computerized Tomography. SIAM, Philadelphia (2001)

    2001

  11. [11]

    IEEE Signal Process

    McCann, M.T., Jin, K.H., Unser, M.: Convolutional neural networks for inverse problems in imaging: A review. IEEE Signal Process. Mag.34(6), 85–95 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    Acta Numer.28, 1–174 (2019)

    Arridge, S., Maass, P., ¨Oktem, O., Sch¨ onlieb, C.-B.: Solving inverse problems using data-driven models. Acta Numer.28, 1–174 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    Ongie, G., Jalal, A., Metzler, C.A., Baraniuk, R.G., Dimakis, A.G., Willett, R.: Deep learning techniques for inverse problems in imaging. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Inf. Theory1(1), 39–56 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    Scarlett, J., Heckel, R., Rodrigues, M.R., Hand, P., Eldar, Y.C.: Theoretical perspectives on deep learning methods in inverse problems. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Inf. Theory3(3), 433–453 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    IEEE Trans

    Jin, K.H., McCann, M.T., Froustey, E., Unser, M.: Deep convolutional neural network for inverse problems in imaging. IEEE Trans. Image Process.26(9), 4509–4522 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-assisted Intervention, pp

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedi- cal Image Segmentation. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-assisted Intervention, pp. 234–241 (2015). Springer

    2015

  17. [17]

    IEEE Trans

    Adler, J., ¨Oktem, O.: Learned primal-dual reconstruction. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging37(6), 1322–1332 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Hammernik, K., Klatzer, T., Kobler, E., Recht, M.P., Sodickson, D.K., Pock, T., Knoll, F.: Learning a variational network for reconstruction of accelerated MRI data. Magn. Reson. Med.79(6), 3055–3071 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Bora, A., Jalal, A., Price, E., Dimakis, A.G.: Compressed sensing using generative models. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 537–546 (2017). PMLR

    2017

  20. [20]

    IEEE Trans

    Mardani, M., Gong, E., Cheng, J.Y., Vasanawala, S.S., Zaharchuk, G., Xing, L., Pauly, J.M.: Deep generative adversarial neural networks for compressive sensing MRI. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging38(1), 167–179 (2018)

    2018

  21. [21]

    Antun, V., Renna, F., Poon, C., Adcock, B., Hansen, A.C.: On instabilities of deep learning in image reconstruction and the potential costs of AI. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.117(48), 30088–30095 (2020) 33

    2020

  22. [22]

    Inverse Probl.36(6), 065005 (2020)

    Li, H., Schwab, J., Antholzer, S., Haltmeier, M.: NETT: solving inverse problems with deep neural networks. Inverse Probl.36(6), 065005 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Lunz, S., ¨Oktem, O., Sch¨ onlieb, C.-B.: Adversarial regularizers in inverse problems. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.31(2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    In: Handbook of Mathematical Models and Algorithms in Computer Vision and Imaging: Mathematical Imaging and Vision, pp

    Lunz, S.: Learned regularizers for inverse problems. In: Handbook of Mathematical Models and Algorithms in Computer Vision and Imaging: Mathematical Imaging and Vision, pp. 1–21. Springer, New York (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Kobler, E., Effland, A., Kunisch, K., Pock, T.: Total deep variation for linear inverse problems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 7549–7558 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    Jin, B., Zhou, Z., Zou, J.: On the convergence of stochastic gradient descent for nonlinear ill-posed problems. SIAM J. Optim.30(2), 1421–1450 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Inverse Probl

    Long, H., Zhang, Y., Gao, G.: An accelerated inexact newton regularization scheme with a learned feature-selection rule for non-linear inverse problems. Inverse Probl. 40(8), 085011 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., Karniadakis, G.E.: Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys.378, 686–707 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    Karniadakis, G.E., Kevrekidis, I.G., Lu, L., Perdikaris, P., Wang, S., Yang, L.: Physics-informed machine learning. Nat. Rev. Phys.3(6), 422–440 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Ulyanov, D., Vedaldi, A., Lempitsky, V.: Deep image prior. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 9446–9454 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    In: International Conference on Learning Represen- tations (2019)

    Heckel, R.,et al.: Deep Decoder: Concise Image Representations from Untrained Non-convolutional Networks. In: International Conference on Learning Represen- tations (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    Dittmer, S., Kluth, T., Maass, P., Otero Baguer, D.: Regularization by architecture: A deep prior approach for inverse problems. J. Math. Imaging Vis.62(3), 456–470 (2020)

    2020

  33. [33]

    Buskulic, N., Fadili, J., Qu´ eau, Y.: Convergence and recovery guarantees of unsupervised neural networks for inverse problems. J. Math. Imaging Vis.66(4), 584–605 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Transact

    Wang, H., Li, T., Zhuang, Z., Chen, T., Liang, H., Sun, J.: Early stopping for deep image prior. Transact. Mach. Learn. Res.2023(2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    IEEE Trans

    Qayyum, A., Ilahi, I., Shamshad, F., Boussaid, F., Bennamoun, M., Qadir, J.: 34 Untrained neural network priors for inverse imaging problems: A survey. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.45(5), 6511–6536 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    Cybenko, G.: Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function. Math. Control Signals Syst.2(4), 303–314 (1989)

    1989

  37. [37]

    Neural Netw.2(5), 359–366 (1989)

    Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., White, H.: Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural Netw.2(5), 359–366 (1989)

    1989

  38. [38]

    Neural Netw.4(2), 251–257 (1991)

    Hornik, K.: Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks. Neural Netw.4(2), 251–257 (1991)

    1991

  39. [39]

    In: International 1989 Joint Conference on Neural Networks, pp

    Stinchcombe: Universal approximation using feedforward networks with non- sigmoid hidden layer activation functions. In: International 1989 Joint Conference on Neural Networks, pp. 613–617 (1989). IEEE

    1989

  40. [40]

    Acta Numer.8, 143–195 (1999)

    Pinkus, A.: Approximation theory of the MLP model in neural networks. Acta Numer.8, 143–195 (1999)

    1999

  41. [41]

    IEEE Trans

    Barron, A.R.: Universal approximation bounds for superpositions of a sigmoidal function. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory39(3), 930–945 (2002)

    2002

  42. [42]

    Bach, F.: Breaking the curse of dimensionality with convex neural networks. J. Mach. Learn. Res.18(19), 1–53 (2017)

    2017

  43. [43]

    Li, Y., Lu, S., Math´ e, P., Pereverzev, S.V.: Two-layer networks with theReLUk activation function: Barron spaces and derivative approximation. Numer. Math. 156(1), 319–344 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    In: Conference on Learning Theory, pp

    Eldan, R., Shamir, O.: The power of depth for feedforward neural networks. In: Conference on Learning Theory, pp. 907–940 (2016). PMLR

    2016

  45. [45]

    In: Conference on Learning Theory, pp

    Telgarsky, M.: Benefits of depth in neural networks. In: Conference on Learning Theory, pp. 1517–1539 (2016). PMLR

    2016

  46. [46]

    shallow networks: An approximation theory perspective

    Mhaskar, H.N., Poggio, T.: Deep vs. shallow networks: An approximation theory perspective. Anal. Appl.14(06), 829–848 (2016)

    2016

  47. [47]

    Poggio, T., Mhaskar, H., Rosasco, L., Miranda, B., Liao, Q.: Why and when can deep-but not shallow-networks avoid the curse of dimensionality: a review. Int. J. Autom. Comput.14(5), 503–519 (2017)

    2017

  48. [48]

    Lu, Z., Pu, H., Wang, F., Hu, Z., Wang, L.: The expressive power of neural networks: A view from the width. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.30(2017)

    2017

  49. [49]

    Neural Netw.94, 103–114 (2017) 35

    Yarotsky, D.: Error bounds for approximations with deep ReLU networks. Neural Netw.94, 103–114 (2017) 35

    2017

  50. [50]

    In: Conference on Learning Theory, pp

    Yarotsky, D.: Optimal approximation of continuous functions by very deep ReLU networks. In: Conference on Learning Theory, pp. 639–649 (2018). PMLR

    2018

  51. [51]

    Neural Netw.119, 74–84 (2019)

    Shen, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, S.: Nonlinear approximation via compositions. Neural Netw.119, 74–84 (2019)

    2019

  52. [52]

    Shen, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, S.: Deep network approximation characterized by number of neurons. Commun. Comput. Phys.28(5), 1768–1811 (2020)

    2020

  53. [53]

    Shen, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, S.: Optimal approximation rate of ReLU networks in terms of width and depth. J. Math. Pures Appl.157, 101–135 (2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    Yarotsky, D., Zhevnerchuk, A.: The phase diagram of approximation rates for deep neural networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.33, 13005–13015 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    G¨ uhring, I., Kutyniok, G., Petersen, P.: Error bounds for approximations with deep ReLU neural networks in W s,p norms. Anal. Appl.18(05), 803–859 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    Lu, J., Shen, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, S.: Deep network approximation for smooth functions. SIAM J. Math. Anal.53(5), 5465–5506 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    Neural Netw.154, 152–164 (2022)

    Hon, S., Yang, H.: Simultaneous neural network approximation for smooth functions. Neural Netw.154, 152–164 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    Neural Netw.108, 296–330 (2018)

    Petersen, P., Voigtlaender, F.: Optimal approximation of piecewise smooth functions using deep ReLU neural networks. Neural Netw.108, 296–330 (2018)

    2018

  59. [59]

    Jiao, Y., Wang, Y., Yang, Y.: Approximation bounds for norm constrained neural networks with applications to regression and GANs. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 65, 249–278 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    Neural Netw.137, 119–126 (2021)

    Schmidt-Hieber, J.: The Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem revisited. Neural Netw.137, 119–126 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    Shallow neural network yields regularization for ill-posed inverse problems

    Wang, L., Zhu, Q., Jin, B., Zhang, Y.: Shallow neural network yields regularization for ill-posed inverse problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.16171 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Yang, Y.: On the optimal approximation of Sobolev and Besov functions using deep ReLU neural networks. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 101797 (2025) 36

    2025