Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

KANELÉ claims that Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks, previously written off as impractical on FPGAs, become nothing but lookup tables and adder trees after quantization and pruning, achieving up to a 2700x speedup and over 4000x resource savings

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 16:32 UTC pith:TYYOH7ZR

load-bearing objection A genuinely LUT-native KAN flow with real merit, but the headline speedup numbers mix in quantization, pruning, and clock-rate gains; the core idea still holds up. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.12850 v3 pith:TYYOH7ZR submitted 2025-12-14 cs.AR cs.LGcs.SYeess.SYhep-ex

KANEL\'E: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks for Efficient LUT-based Evaluation

Duc Hoang , Aarush Gupta , Philip Harris This is my paper
classification cs.AR cs.LGcs.SYeess.SYhep-ex
keywords Kolmogorov-Arnold NetworksFPGALookup tablesQuantization-aware trainingPruningHardware-software codesignLow-latency inferenceLUT-based neural networks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to overturn the view that Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks (KANs) are impractical on FPGAs. Its core move is to recognize that each edge in a KAN is a learnable one-dimensional spline on a fixed domain, so after quantization-aware training each activation is not approximated by but is a lookup table; since a KAN layer is only sums of these functions, the whole network becomes independent lookup tables feeding pipelined adder trees. The paper reports that this design flow, which also prunes edges by their norm-based contribution, eliminates DSP and block-RAM usage, sustains clocks above 800 MHz, and beats the prior KAN-on-FPGA implementation by up to 2700x in latency and over 4000x in resources. On established LUT-network benchmarks, particularly jet tagging and other tasks with symbolic structure, it matches or exceeds other LUT-based designs, and it extends to an 8-bit control policy that outperforms a five-times-larger MLP while fitting on the FPGA. The claim matters because it changes the hardware calculus for KANs, a model family already prized for expressiveness and interpretability.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a KAN is not approximated by lookup tables but, after quantization and pruning, is a lookup table. Each learned one-dimensional spline activation, defined on a fixed domain, is enumerated over its quantized input space into a logical lookup table (L-LUT); because a KAN layer computes only sums of such functions, the entire network reduces to independent L-LUTs feeding balanced pipelined adder trees. This additive structure also makes each edge independently prunable, which is not possible in chained LUT-based networks. The authors describe the shift as going 'from emulating arithmetic to directly configuring logic,' eliminating DSP and block-RAM usage, susta

What carries the argument

The logical lookup table (L-LUT): each trained, quantized edge activation phi(x) is converted into a truth table covering the quantized input domain, so the activation is itself a lookup table. Because KAN layers are additive, each L-LUT feeds a balanced pipelined adder tree; a norm-based pruning criterion scores every edge by the L2 norm of its spline output over a sampled grid, and an exponential-warmup threshold removes low-contribution edges without breaking the sum. This combination is what lets the toolflow emit FPGA designs that use only lookup tables and flip-flops, with no DSP blocks or block RAM.

Load-bearing premise

The dramatic speedup and resource-savings figures come from comparing against a prior KAN-on-FPGA implementation that used neither quantization nor pruning, so the numbers assume the LUT mapping—not the compression—is responsible for most of the gain.

What would settle it

Take the earlier KAN-on-FPGA implementation, apply the same 5–8 bit quantization and norm-based pruning that KANELÉ uses, and keep the rest of its hardware design unchanged; if the resulting latency and resource counts come within an order of magnitude of KANELÉ's reported numbers on Moons, Wine, and Dry Bean, then the claimed 2700x speedup and 4000x resource savings cannot be attributed to the lookup-table architecture.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The prior conclusion that KANs are impractical on FPGAs is directly refuted; KAN inference becomes a LUT-only computation with nanosecond-scale latency.
  • KANELÉ eliminates DSP and BRAM usage entirely, so KAN inference can run at clock frequencies above 800 MHz on small FPGA footprints.
  • The additive structure of KANs makes pruning hardware-native, yielding sparsity that chained LUT-based networks cannot achieve; on the jet-tagging benchmark KANELÉ uses 18x fewer LUTs than a comparable-accuracy design.
  • The design flow compiles a trained KAN into synthesizable RTL within seconds, making ultra-low-latency LUT inference a push-button process rather than hand-crafted RTL.
  • An 8-bit quantized KAN policy for continuous control outperforms a five-times-larger MLP actor, showing the flow extends beyond classification to reinforcement-learning deployment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the claimed 2700x/4000x improvements are measured against a prior implementation that used neither quantization nor pruning, my read is that a compressed version of that baseline would shrink the reported gap; the fair comparison would separate the LUT-mapping benefit from the compression benefit.
  • If the quantization-tolerance seen in the control experiment (8-bit KAN beating its full-precision version) is a real regularizing effect, it suggests quantization-aware training could be used more broadly as a regularizer for KANs, beyond hardware motivations.
  • The edge-independence that makes pruning natural also suggests hot-swapping individual LUT contents could enable online adaptation of a deployed KAN without re-synthesis—an ability the paper lists as future work but does not demonstrate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces KANELÉ, a hardware-software co-design flow that trains Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks with quantization-aware training and structured pruning, then compiles each surviving learned spline activation into a logic LUT truth table, generates pipelined VHDL, and synthesizes it on FPGAs. The experimental evaluation covers LUT-NN benchmarks (JSC CERNBox, JSC OpenML, MNIST), the prior KAN FPGA implementation of Tran et al. (Moons, Wine, Dry Bean), the MLPerf Tiny ToyADMOS benchmark, and a HalfCheetah reinforcement-learning control demo. The paper claims up to 2700× latency reduction and over 4000× resource reduction versus prior KAN-on-FPGA work, competitive or better Area×Delay versus other LUT-based architectures, and particular suitability for tasks with symbolic or physical structure.

Significance. If substantiated, the central architectural insight is valuable: KANs' additive fixed-domain spline activations are structurally closer to LUT primitives than MAC-based MLPs, and the additive form permits structured pruning without breaking indexing chains. The toolflow is a concrete, reproducible contribution: it is open-source, generates deterministic RTL from PyTorch checkpoints, produces bit-accurate L-LUT truth tables, and reports post-synthesis results with no DSP/BRAM use. The strongest benchmark results (e.g., JSC CERNBox Area×Delay and ToyADMOS efficiency) are useful even after discounting the headline comparison to Tran et al. However, the headline 2700×/4000× claims are not isolated from the co-applied aggressive quantization/pruning and from device/clock differences, so the specific claim that LUT-native mapping is the source of the gains is currently under-supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.4, Table 4; Abstract; §1] The headline comparison to Tran et al. does not isolate the proposed LUT mapping. On Dry Bean, KANELÉ uses 402 LUTs and 6 cycles at 842 MHz, while Tran et al. uses 1,677,558 LUTs and 1,896 cycles at ~100 MHz (18,960 ns / 1,896). The reported 2,670× latency gap decomposes into ~316× fewer cycles and ~8.4× higher clock frequency. The cycle/resource gaps are further conflated with KANELÉ's 6-bit/6-bit/8-bit quantization and structured pruning, which the Tran et al. baseline does not use; the baseline also exceeds the xczu7ev capacity (1.68M LUTs and 9,111 DSPs), suggesting the comparison is not on equal footing. To support the claim that LUT-native mapping, not compression, is the source of the gains, the paper needs either an ablation applying the same quantization/pruning to a non-LUT or uncompressed KAN implementation, or a version of KANELÉ without pruning/quantization, plus a like-for-
  2. [§5.7.3, Table 7] The RL hardware comparison is asymmetric: the 8-bit MLP actor does not fit on the target FPGA, so its Fmax, LUT/FF/DSP counts, and latency are HLS estimates, while the KAN 8-bit results are from place-and-route. The table caption discloses this, but the surrounding text states the comparison as if both were measured. HLS estimates can differ materially from post-implementation results. The manuscript should state this limitation in the main text and either synthesize the MLP on a larger device, report post-synthesis estimates for the KAN under the same HLS flow, or explicitly downgrade the hardware claim for the control experiment.
  3. [§5.6, Figure 6] The ablation study is informative as a sensitivity analysis of KANELÉ's own design knobs, but it does not isolate the LUT-mapping contribution relative to prior KAN implementations. It varies pruning, width, and bitwidth within KANELÉ, showing how resources respond to these knobs, but no condition separates 'LUT mapping' from 'aggressive quantization and pruning.' A mapping-only ablation—for example, mapping an unpruned, full-precision spline KAN through the same RTL flow, or applying the same quantization/pruning to a non-LUT spline KAN—is needed to support the abstract's claim that the architecture itself, rather than the co-applied compression, drives the reported gains.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6] The statement that each learned activation 'is a lookup table' is precise only after quantization and L-LUT conversion; before quantization it is a spline. Recommend phrasing such as 'is implemented as a lookup table' to avoid overstatement.
  2. [§4.1.4 and §5.4] The LUT-NN comparisons use xcvu9p while the Tran et al. comparison uses xczu7ev. Different device families/process nodes affect Fmax and resource availability. This should be stated explicitly in the comparison and ideally controlled by re-running the baseline on the same device.
  3. [Table 7] The row labeled 'Dynamic Power' is reported as '0.224 nJ/sample' and '≫0.224 nJ/sample'; the unit is energy per sample, not power. Please use consistent terminology and units across Tables 5 and 7.
  4. [References] The hls4ml references are used inconsistently: [10] is cited for the MLPerf Tiny comparison in Table 5, while [16] and [33] are used in Table 3. Please verify that each table cites the specific hls4ml configuration/version that produced the reported numbers.
  5. [Abstract and §1] The abstract says 'up to a 2700x speedup,' while §1 says 'reducing latency by up to 2700×.' Please use one consistent quantity (latency, throughput, or cycles) and qualify it as measured on a specific benchmark/device.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central efficiency claims rest on measured post-synthesis benchmarks against external or prior-published baselines, and the LUT-identity statement is a definitional consequence of the toolflow rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not derive any central result from an assumed conclusion. Section 4.1.2 states that each surviving KAN connection is enumerated, evaluated, and quantized into per-connection truth tables, so the Section 6 statement that each learned activation 'is a lookup table' is a restatement of that implemented mapping, not a prediction produced by fitting a parameter to a subset of data. Resource, latency, and accuracy numbers in Tables 2–5 and 7 are measured after quantization-aware training, pruning, synthesis, and place-and-route, and they are compared against external or previously published baselines such as Tran et al. [41], ChebyUnit [50], NeuraLUT-Assemble [6], DWN [7], hls4ml [10], and others. No step fits a quantity and then presents a closely related quantity as an independent prediction. The hls4ml citations ([16], [33]) include some of the present authors, but they are used only as published baseline implementations; the efficiency claims are supported by KANELÉ's own synthesis results, not by those citations alone. The acknowledged limitation in Section 4.2 that LUT size scales exponentially with input bitwidth, and the Table 7 note that the MLP 8-bit baseline is based on HLS estimates because it does not fit the FPGA, are fairness and scope caveats rather than circular derivations. Because no load-bearing derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The reported speedups rest on per-benchmark design choices (bit widths, pruning thresholds, architectures) and on standard KAN/QAT assumptions; no new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Layer bitwidths n_l = per dataset: e.g., Moons [6,5,8], MNIST [1,6,6], JSC CERNBox [8,8,6]
    Set per benchmark to trade accuracy vs resource; directly determines LUT sizes and the reported resource counts.
  • Pruning threshold T and warmup schedule (t0, tf) = T=0 to 0.9 depending on dataset; t0/tf not numerically specified
    Controls how many edges survive; hand-tuned per benchmark, strongly affecting the reported LUT/FF savings.
  • Network dimensions d_l = e.g., [16,12,5] for CERNBox; [64,16,8,16,64] for ToyADMOS; [17,6] for RL actor
    Architectures selected per task; set the total number of LUTs and adder-tree depth.
  • Spline grid G, order S, domain [a,b] = G=6/30/40, S=3/10, [a,b]=[-8,8] or [-2,2]
    Spline representation choices; authors state they affect accuracy only, but they still shape the function fitted.
  • Quantizer scales/clip bounds = learned during QAT, fixed at inference
    Per-layer scales s_l and input bias b_I are trained on the data; they set the quantization levels and hence approximation error.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem: continuous multivariate functions can be represented as finite sums of univariate functions and additions
    Sec. 2.1/Fig 1: theoretical motivation for KANs; true for continuous functions on compact domains, but finite-depth KANs are an approximation.
  • domain assumption B-spline basis functions can parameterize the needed 1D activations with a small number of coefficients
    Sec. 3.1 Eq. (2): assumes the chosen grid/order is expressive enough for the target tasks.
  • domain assumption Straight-through estimator provides reliable gradients through quantization
    Sec. 3.2 Eq. (9): standard QAT approximation; its validity for these small networks is not proven.
  • domain assumption L2 norm over a sampled grid is a good importance measure for pruning
    Sec. 3.3 Eq. (11): chosen pruning criterion; alternative criteria could change the resource/accuracy frontier.
  • domain assumption Out-of-context synthesis results (Fmax, latency, resources) predict real-system performance
    Sec. 4.1.4/5.5: authors note the global clock may limit, but report core Fmax as the operative metric.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17716 in / 18022 out tokens · 152216 ms · 2026-08-03T16:32:47.242295+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Low-latency, resource-efficient neural network inference on FPGAs is essential for applications demanding real-time capability and low power. Lookup table (LUT)-based neural networks are a common solution, combining strong representational power with efficient FPGA implementation. In this work, we introduce KANEL\'E, a framework that exploits the unique properties of Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs) for FPGA deployment. Unlike traditional multilayer perceptrons (MLPs), KANs employ learnable one-dimensional splines with fixed domains as edge activations, a structure naturally suited to discretization and efficient LUT mapping. We present the first systematic design flow for implementing KANs on FPGAs, co-optimizing training with quantization and pruning to enable compact, high-throughput, and low-latency KAN architectures. Our results demonstrate up to a 2700x speedup and orders of magnitude resource savings compared to prior KAN-on-FPGA approaches. Moreover, KANEL\'E matches or surpasses other LUT-based architectures on widely used benchmarks, particularly for tasks involving symbolic or physical formulas, while balancing resource usage across FPGA hardware. Finally, we showcase the versatility of the framework by extending it to real-time, power-efficient control systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.12850 by Aarush Gupta, Duc Hoang, Philip Harris.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: From the Kolmogorov-Arnold Representation Theorem to efficient KAN FPGA inference. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A KAN activation 𝜙 (𝑥) represented as a linear com￾bination of B-spline basis functions 𝐵𝑖(𝑥) on a grid over [𝑎, 𝑏]: 𝜙 (𝑥) = Í 𝑖 𝑐𝑖𝐵𝑖(𝑥). Trainable coefficients 𝑐𝑖 control the overall function shape. 3.1 KAN Architecture with Learnable Activation Functions Before introducing quantization and pruning, we first outline the core architecture. Unlike MLPs, KANs replace fixed nonlineari￾ties with learnable acti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Layer-wise uniform quantization. Here, 2-bit inputs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the KAN to FPGA implementation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Balanced, pipelined adder tree for computing one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation study of KANELÉ on the JSC OpenML benchmark demonstrating trade-offs between accuracy, pruning, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PPO training on HalfCheetah-v5 with 5 seeds. The quantized KAN actor (8-bit) outperforms both the KAN (FP) and the larger MLP (FP), despite using ∼5× fewer parameters, showing robustness to quantization and strong parameter efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Physical Analogue Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks based on Reconfigurable Nonlinear-Processing Units

    cs.ET 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    A proposed analog KAN chip uses silicon RNPUs as physically programmable nonlinear edges, with estimated ~250 pJ per inference and ~10x smaller area than a digital MLP.

  2. Concurrent training methods for Kolmogorov-Arnold networks: Disjoint datasets and FPGA implementation

    cs.LG 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0

    Three concurrency tricks — group-wise pre-training, disjoint-batch training with parameter averaging, and fixed-point FPGA execution — speed up Newton-Kaczmarz KAN training, with measured CPU gains of ~7-9x over the a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Dry Bean

    2020. Dry Bean. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C50S4B. KANELÉ: Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks for Efficient LUT-based Evaluation FPGA ’26, February 22–24, 2026, Seaside, CA, USA

    doi:10.24432/c50s4b 2020

  2. [2]

    Stefan Aeberhard and M. Forina. 1992. Wine. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5PC7J

    doi:10.24432/c5pc7j 1992

  3. [3]

    Igor Aleksander, W. V. Thomas, and Pr Bowden. 1984. WISARD·a radical step forward in image recognition.Sensor Review4 (1984), 120–124. https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:108462259

    1984

  4. [4]

    Constantinides

    Marta Andronic and George A. Constantinides. 2023. PolyLUT: Learning Piecewise Polynomials for Ultra-Low Latency FPGA LUT-based Inference. In 2023 International Conference on Field Programmable Technology (ICFPT). IEEE. doi:10.1109/icfpt59805.2023.00012

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Constantinides

    Marta Andronic and George A. Constantinides. 2024. NeuraLUT: Hiding Neural Network Density in Boolean Synthesizable Functions. In2024 34th International Conference on Field-Programmable Logic and Applications (FPL). IEEE, 140–148. doi:10.1109/fpl64840.2024.00028

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Constantinides

    Marta Andronic and George A. Constantinides. 2025. NeuraLUT-Assemble: Hardware-aware Assembling of Sub-Neural Networks for Efficient LUT Inference. arXiv:2504.00592 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00592

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Alan T. L. Bacellar, Zachary Susskind, Mauricio Breternitz Jr., Eugene John, Lizy K. John, Priscila M. V. Lima, and Felipe M. G. França. 2025. Differentiable Weightless Neural Networks. arXiv:2410.11112 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Colby Banbury, Vijay Janapa Reddi, Peter Torelli, Jeremy Holleman, Nat Jeffries, Csaba Kiraly, Pietro Montino, David Kanter, Sebastian Ahmed, Danilo Pau, et al

  9. [9]

    Alexander Dylan Bodner, Antonio Santiago Tepsich, Jack Natan Spolski, and Santiago Pourteau. 2025. Convolutional Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks. arXiv:2406.13155 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13155

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Hendrik Borras, Giuseppe Di Guglielmo, Javier Duarte, Nicolò Ghielmetti, Ben Hawks, Scott Hauck, Shih-Chieh Hsu, Ryan Kastner, Jason Liang, Andres Meza, Jules Muhizi, Tai Nguyen, Rushil Roy, Nhan Tran, Yaman Umuroglu, Olivia Weng, Aidan Yokuda, and Michaela Blott. 2022. Open-source FPGA-ML codesign for the MLPerf Tiny Benchmark. arXiv:2206.11791 [cs.LG] h...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    CERN Collaboration. 2025. CERNBox LHC Jets Dataset. https://cernbox.cern. ch/index.php/s/jvFd5MoWhGs1l5v/download [Accessed: Sept 1, 2025]

    2025

  12. [12]

    Sun Chang, Thea Årrestad, Vladimir Lončar, Jennifer Ngadiuba, and Maria Spirop- ulu. 2024. Gradient-based Automatic Per-Weight Mixed Precision Quantization for Neural Networks On-Chip. doi:10.7907/HQ8JD-RHG30

    doi:10.7907/hq8jd-rhg30 2024

  13. [13]

    Cruz, Balázs Renczes, Mark C

    Gonçalo G. Cruz, Balázs Renczes, Mark C. Runacres, and Jan Decuyper. 2025. State-Space Kolmogorov Arnold Networks for Interpretable Nonlinear System Identification.IEEE Control Systems Letters9 (2025), 847–852. doi:10.1109/LCSYS. 2025.3578019

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Li Deng. 2012. The MNIST Database of Handwritten Digit Images for Machine Learning Research [Best of the Web].IEEE Signal Processing Magazine29, 6 (2012), 141–142. doi:10.1109/MSP.2012.2211477

    arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    Ivan Drokin. 2024. Kolmogorov-Arnold Convolutions: Design Principles and Empirical Studies. arXiv:2407.01092 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Farah Fahim, Benjamin Hawks, Christian Herwig, James Hirschauer, Sergo Jin- dariani, Nhan Tran, Luca P. Carloni, Giuseppe Di Guglielmo, Philip Harris, Jef- frey Krupa, Dylan Rankin, Manuel Blanco Valentin, Josiah Hester, Yingyi Luo, John Mamish, Seda Orgrenci-Memik, Thea Aarrestad, Hamza Javed, Vladimir Loncar, Maurizio Pierini, Adrian Alan Pol, Sioni Sum...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    2025.Xilinx/bre- vitas

    Giuseppe Franco, Alessandro Pappalardo, and Nicholas J Fraser. 2025.Xilinx/bre- vitas. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3333552

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.3333552 2025

  18. [18]

    Remi Genet and Hugo Inzirillo. 2025. TKAN: Temporal Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks. arXiv:2405.07344 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07344

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Xiao Han, Xinfeng Zhang, Yiling Wu, Zhenduo Zhang, and Zhe Wu

  20. [21]

    Abdullah Al Imran and Md Farhan Ishmam. 2024. FourierKAN outperforms MLP on Text Classification Head Fine-tuning. arXiv:2408.08803 [cs.CL] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2408.08803

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [22]

    Tianrui Ji, Yuntian Hou, and Di Zhang. 2025. A Comprehensive Survey on Kolmogorov Arnold Networks (KAN). arXiv:2407.11075 [cs.LG] https://arxiv. org/abs/2407.11075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [23]

    Alireza Khataei and Kia Bazargan. 2025. TreeLUT: An Efficient Alternative to Deep Neural Networks for Inference Acceleration Using Gradient Boosted Decision Trees. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA ’25). ACM, 14–24. doi:10.1145/3706628. 3708877

    work page doi:10.1145/3706628 2025

  23. [24]

    Victor Augusto Kich, Jair Augusto Bottega, Raul Steinmetz, Ricardo Bedin Grando, Ayano Yorozu, and Akihisa Ohya. 2024. Kolmogorov-Arnold Network for Online Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:2408.04841 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2408. 04841

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [25]

    Chenxin Li, Xinyu Liu, Wuyang Li, Cheng Wang, Hengyu Liu, and Yixuan Yuan

  25. [26]

    Longlong Li, Yipeng Zhang, Guanghui Wang, and Kelin Xia. 2025. Kolmogorov– Arnold graph neural networks for molecular property prediction.Nature Machine Intelligence7, 8 (2025), 1346–1354. doi:10.1038/s42256-025-01087-7

    doi:10.1038/s42256-025-01087-7 2025

  26. [27]

    Ziming Liu, Pingchuan Ma, Yixuan Wang, Wojciech Matusik, and Max Tegmark. 2024. KAN 2.0: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks Meet Science. arXiv:2408.10205 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10205

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [28]

    Hou, and Max Tegmark

    Ziming Liu, Yixuan Wang, Sachin Vaidya, Fabian Ruehle, James Halverson, Marin Soljačić, Thomas Y. Hou, and Max Tegmark. 2025. KAN: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks. arXiv:2404.19756 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19756

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [29]

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. arXiv:1711.05101 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [30]

    Binglei Lou, Richard Rademacher, David Boland, and Philip H. W. Leong

  30. [31]

    Marmiton. n.d.. Cannelés bordelais. https://www.marmiton.org/recettes/recette_ canneles-bordelais_11439.aspx. Accessed: Sept 23, 2025

    2025

  31. [32]

    Miranda, Aman Arora, Zachary Susskind, Luis A.Q

    Igor D.S. Miranda, Aman Arora, Zachary Susskind, Luis A.Q. Villon, Rafael F. Katopodis, Diego L.C. Dutra, Leandro S. De Araújo, Priscila M.V. Lima, Felipe M.G. França, Lizy K. John, and Mauricio Breternitz. 2022. LogicWiSARD: Memoryless Synthesis of Weightless Neural Networks. In2022 IEEE 33rd International Confer- ence on Application-specific Systems, Ar...

    arXiv 2022

  32. [33]

    Jennifer Ngadiuba, Vladimir Loncar, Maurizio Pierini, Sioni Summers, Giuseppe Di Guglielmo, Javier Duarte, Philip Harris, Dylan Rankin, Sergo Jindariani, Mia Liu, Kevin Pedro, Nhan Tran, Edward Kreinar, Sheila Sagear, Zhenbin Wu, and Duc Hoang. 2020. Compressing deep neural networks on FPGAs to binary and ternary precision with hls4ml.Machine Learning: Sc...

    doi:10.1088/2632-2153/aba042 2020

  33. [34]

    arXiv:2406.04910 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04910

    PolyLUT-Add: FPGA-based LUT Inference with Wide Inputs. arXiv:2406.04910 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04910

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [35]

    Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, Jake Vanderplas, Alexandre Passos, David Cournapeau, Matthieu Brucher, Matthieu Perrot, and Édouard Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python.Journal of Machine Learning Re...

    2011

  35. [36]

    Shriyank Somvanshi, Syed Aaqib Javed, Md Monzurul Islam, Diwas Pandit, and Subasish Das. 2025. A Survey on Kolmogorov-Arnold Network.Comput. Surveys (June 2025). doi:10.1145/3743128

    doi:10.1145/3743128 2025

  36. [37]

    Chang Sun, Zhiqiang Que, Vladimir Loncar, Wayne Luk, and Maria Spiropulu

  37. [38]

    OpenML Contributors and LHC Jets HLF Curators. 2020. hls4ml lhc jets hlf (OpenML Dataset 42468). https://www.openml.org/d/42468 [Accessed: Sept 1, 2025]

    2020

  38. [39]

    Zachary Susskind, Alan Bacellar, Aman Arora, Luis Villon, Renan Mendanha, Le- andro Santiago, Diego Dutra, Priscila Lima, Felipe França, Igor Miranda, Mauricio Breternitz, and LIZY JOHN. 2022. Pruning Weightless Neural Networks. 37–42. doi:10.14428/esann/2022.ES2022-55

    work page doi:10.14428/esann/2022.es2022-55 2022

  39. [40]

    Emanuel Todorov, Tom Erez, and Yuval Tassa. 2012. MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control. In2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 5026–5033. doi:10.1109/IROS.2012.6386109

    arXiv 2012

  40. [41]

    Van Duy Tran, Tran Xuan Hieu Le, Thi Diem Tran, Hoai Luan Pham, Vu Trung Duong Le, Tuan Hai Vu, Van Tinh Nguyen, and Yasuhiko Nakashima. 2024. Exploring the Limitations of Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks in Classification: Insights to Software Training and Hardware Implementation. In2024 Twelfth International Symposium on Computing and Networking Workshops (CA...

    arXiv 2024

  41. [42]

    arXiv:2507.04535 [cs.AR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.04535

    da4ml: Distributed Arithmetic for Real-time Neural Networks on FPGAs. arXiv:2507.04535 [cs.AR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.04535

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [43]

    Zachary Susskind, Aman Arora, Igor D. S. Miranda, Luis A. Q. Villon, Rafael F. Katopodis, Leandro S. de Araújo, Diego L. C. Dutra, Priscila M. V. Lima, Felipe M. G. França, Mauricio Breternitz, and Lizy K. John. 2023. Weightless Neural Networks for Efficient Edge Inference. InProceedings of the International Con- ference on Parallel Architectures and Comp...

    arXiv 2023

  43. [44]

    Davis, Peter Y

    Erwei Wang, James J. Davis, Peter Y. K. Cheung, and George A. Constantinides

  44. [45]

    Siegel, Ziming Liu, and Thomas Y

    Yixuan Wang, Jonathan W. Siegel, Ziming Liu, and Thomas Y. Hou. 2025. On the expressiveness and spectral bias of KANs. arXiv:2410.01803 [cs.LG] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.01803

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [46]

    Yizheng Wang, Jia Sun, Jinshuai Bai, Cosmin Anitescu, Mohammad Sadegh Eshaghi, Xiaoying Zhuang, Timon Rabczuk, and Yinghua Liu. 2025. Kolmogorov–Arnold-Informed neural network: A physics-informed deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems based on Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering433 (Ja...

    arXiv 2025

  46. [47]

    Fraser, and Michaela Blott

    Yaman Umuroglu, Yash Akhauri, Nicholas J. Fraser, and Michaela Blott. 2020. LogicNets: Co-Designed Neural Networks and Circuits for Extreme-Throughput Applications. arXiv:2004.03021 [eess.SP] https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.03021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [48]

    Fraser, Giulio Gambardella, Michaela Blott, Philip Leong, Magnus Jahre, and Kees Vissers

    Yaman Umuroglu, Nicholas J. Fraser, Giulio Gambardella, Michaela Blott, Philip Leong, Magnus Jahre, and Kees Vissers. 2017. FINN: A Framework for Fast, Scal- able Binarized Neural Network Inference. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA ’17). ACM, FPGA ’26, February 22–24, 2026, Seaside, CA, US...

    arXiv 2017

  48. [49]

    Jusheng Zhang, Yijia Fan, Kaitong Cai, and Keze Wang. 2025. Kolmogorov-Arnold Fourier Networks. arXiv:2502.06018 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [50]

    Zhonglongyou, WEN-LING DING, Chieh-Hsin Yu, HUNG YU CHEN, TSUNG- KAI WENG, You-Jin Liu, and ErayHsieh. 2026. CHEBYUNIT: HARDWARE- ACCELERATED ENERGY-EFFICIENT FPGA WITH LOW COMPUTATION COMPLEXITY FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ACCELERATION. https: //openreview.net/forum?id=ifKE2RjnXm

    2026

  50. [53]

    Constantinides, Nhan Tran, Nicholas J

    Olivia Weng, Marta Andronic, Danial Zuberi, Jiaqing Chen, Caleb Geniesse, George A. Constantinides, Nhan Tran, Nicholas J. Fraser, Javier Mauricio Duarte, and Ryan Kastner. 2025. Greater than the Sum of its LUTs: Scaling Up LUT- based Neural Networks with AmigoLUT. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field Programmable Gate Arra...

    arXiv 2025

  51. [54]

    Runpeng Yu, Weihao Yu, and Xinchao Wang. 2024. KAN or MLP: A Fairer Comparison. arXiv:2407.16674 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16674

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [2019]

    arXiv:1904.00938 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.00938

    LUTNet: Rethinking Inference in FPGA Soft Logic. arXiv:1904.00938 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.00938

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  53. [2021]

    MLPerf Tiny Benchmark.Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks(2021)

    2021

  54. [2024]

    U-KAN Makes Strong Backbone for Medical Image Segmentation and Generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02918(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [2025]

    Are KANs Effective for Multivariate Time Series Forecasting? arXiv:2408.11306 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.11306

    Pith/arXiv arXiv