analiza aiqbench
This research re-evaluates the "curse of dimensionality" by shifting the metric from parameter count to computational bit complexity, revealing that neural networks do not fundamentally surpass classical approximation limits when finite precision is accounted for. The findings suggest that perceived architectural advantages often stem from differences in function class complexity rather than intrinsic superiority over traditional methods like sparse grids or polynomials. Ultimately, this work reframes efficiency constraints as a "curse of bit complexity" governed by metric entropy, offering a more realistic theoretical bound for practical AI computation.
Do Neural Networks Really Beat the Curse of Dimensionality? A Bit-Complexity View
arXiv:2608.01357v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Traditional approximation theory measures convergence rates in terms of the number of parameters or degrees of freedom. However, practical computation operates under finite precision: parameters must be encoded using a finite number of bits. Therefore, approximation efficiency should be evaluated in terms of computational bit complexity, which is intrinsically connected to the metric entropy of the underlying function class. In this work, we develop a unified approximation framework based on binary encoding and metric entropy. We analyze classical methods (including polynomial approximation, sparse grids, and finite elements) as well as shallow and deep neural networks, and compare their approximation rates for function classes with comparable metric entropy. We observe that, when evaluated in terms of bits, most classical methods are in general suboptimal relative to the intrinsic limits dictated by metric entropy, while neural network methods may exhibit different behaviors. We show that when complexity is measured in bits rather than parameters, no method fundamentally exceeds the approximation order achieved by classical approaches. Our results also indicate that many seeming advantages of neural networks, including dimension-independent rates and superconvergence phenomena, stem from differences in function class complexity rather than intrinsic architectural superiority. In this sense, the traditional curse of dimensionality can be misleading; the fundamental limitation is instead a curse of bit complexity, governed by metric entropy.
Title:Do Neural Networks Really Beat the Curse of Dimensionality? A Bit-Complexity View
Abstract:Traditional approximation theory measures convergence rates in terms of the number of parameters or degrees of freedom. However, practical computation operates under finite precision: parameters must be encoded using a finite number of bits. Therefore, approximation efficiency should be evaluated in terms of computational bit complexity, which is intrinsically connected to the metric entropy of the underlying function class. In this work, we develop a unified approximation framework based on binary encoding and metric entropy. We analyze classical methods (including polynomial approximation, sparse grids, and finite elements) as well as shallow and deep neural networks, and compare their approximation rates for function classes with comparable metric entropy. We observe that, when evaluated in terms of bits, most classical methods are in general suboptimal relative to the intrinsic limits dictated by metric entropy, while neural network methods may exhibit different behaviors. We show that when complexity is measured in bits rather than parameters, no method fundamentally exceeds the approximation order achieved by classical approaches. Our results also indicate that many seeming advantages of neural networks, including dimension-independent rates and superconvergence phenomena, stem from differences in function class complexity rather than intrinsic architectural superiority. In this sense, the traditional curse of dimensionality can be misleading; the fundamental limitation is instead a curse of bit complexity, governed by metric entropy.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.01357 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2608.01357v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.01357 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 323 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Generalization and infinite width
LessWrong · 1 aug. 2026
A Mike's-Eye View of ARC's Research
AI Alignment Forum · 9 iun. 2026
Synthesis Superintelligence: from Semiconductors to Superconductors — Periodic Labs’ Liam Fedus and Ekin Dogus Cubuk
Latent Space · 8 oct. 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026