aiqbench analysis
This research highlights a critical gap in validating wave-based neural operators, demonstrating that random device sampling significantly underestimates worst-case errors caused by fabrication and alignment variations. The study reveals that targeted searches can uncover error magnitudes up to 39 times higher than those predicted by standard Monte Carlo simulations, urging developers to adopt worst-case search strategies for robust deployment of Fourier layers.
Targeted search shows that random-device testing underestimates worst-case error in a simulated wave-based neural operator
arXiv:2610.07529v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Wave-based processors promise fast, energy-efficient Fourier layers for neural operators. They are usually validated on randomly sampled devices, but using them requires knowing how large their error can become under fabrication and alignment variation. In a stylised numerical case study, a hybrid Fourier neural operator runs its four spectral layers on simulated coherent 4f processors with 32 toleranced knobs, whose half-widths are representative rather than calibrated. For 120 models (four tasks, six training methods, five seeds), we compared the worst of N random in-spec devices with a searched one. On a deterministic simulator with one frozen draw of the random static errors, the searched device's held-out error was 1.08-3.10 times the maximum over 200 Monte Carlo devices and 1.06-2.71 times that over 1000. With 20 fresh static draws, it still exceeded the maximum over 200 random devices in 116 of 120 models. Under uniform sampling, the probability of drawing such a device is at most 0.37% per model (two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson), which says nothing about how large its error is. The gap persisted with uniform or Sobol' sampling at the search's budget, shared knobs, a second crosstalk model, box scales of 0.25-2 and a pixel-level device model. Models trained only with random static errors reached 3.7-39.9 times their nominal error on searched devices, and fine-tuning on random and gradient-searched devices gave the lowest searched error of the six in all 20 task-seed pairs. For two heat-exchanger quantities, a search targeted at each exceeded the worst of 1000 random devices in all 39 models, and hence the Wilks 95/95 limit (worst of 59). For the mean pressure of 11 models, no random device exceeded a 1% error threshold, but the searched device did. Random testing estimates how often errors exceed a threshold; worst-device search gives a lower bound on how large they can be.
Abstract:Wave-based processors promise fast, energy-efficient Fourier layers for neural operators. They are usually validated on randomly sampled devices, but using them requires knowing how large their error can become under fabrication and alignment variation. In a stylised numerical case study, a hybrid Fourier neural operator runs its four spectral layers on simulated coherent 4f processors with 32 toleranced knobs, whose half-widths are representative rather than calibrated. For 120 models (four tasks, six training methods, five seeds), we compared the worst of N random in-spec devices with a searched one. On a deterministic simulator with one frozen draw of the random static errors, the searched device's held-out error was 1.08-3.10 times the maximum over 200 Monte Carlo devices and 1.06-2.71 times that over 1000. With 20 fresh static draws, it still exceeded the maximum over 200 random devices in 116 of 120 models. Under uniform sampling, the probability of drawing such a device is at most 0.37% per model (two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson), which says nothing about how large its error is. The gap persisted with uniform or Sobol' sampling at the search's budget, shared knobs, a second crosstalk model, box scales of 0.25-2 and a pixel-level device model. Models trained only with random static errors reached 3.7-39.9 times their nominal error on searched devices, and fine-tuning on random and gradient-searched devices gave the lowest searched error of the six in all 20 task-seed pairs. For two heat-exchanger quantities, a search targeted at each exceeded the worst of 1000 random devices in all 39 models, and hence the Wilks 95/95 limit (worst of 59). For the mean pressure of 11 models, no random device exceeded a 1% error threshold, but the searched device did. Random testing estimates how often errors exceed a threshold; worst-device search gives a lower bound on how large they can be.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Emerging Technologies (cs.ET); Optics (physics.optics)
arXiv:2610.07529 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.07529v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.07529 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 402 words
