Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 17 references

Robustifying Fourier Features Embeddings for Implicit Neural Representations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that unsampled frequency components set a loss floor for Fourier-feature INRs, and that a bias-free MLP filter lowers that floor.

desk verdict Worth a serious referee for the empirical filter trick, but the NTK lower-bound theory doesn't survive contact with the actual networks. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05482 v1 pith:TSCKK223 submitted 2025-02-08 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords implicitneuralrepresentationsFourierfeaturespositionalencodingspectralbiastangentkernelbias-freeMLPadaptivelinearfilterradiancefields
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

Implicit neural representations fit signals by mapping coordinates to values, but they tend to produce noisy outputs when the input is encoded with Fourier features. The paper tries to show that this noise is not incidental: if the embedding samples only finitely many frequencies, the target function's energy at the unsampled frequencies places a lower bound on the loss that no further training can remove. It then proposes a remedy that follows from that account, passing the embedding through a bias-free MLP used as an adaptive linear filter, which suppresses unwanted high frequencies in smooth regions and generates new frequency combinations elsewhere. A line-search scheme adjusts the filter's learning rate relative to the main network. The experiments report consistent gains across image regression, 3D shape regression, and neural radiance fields.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a bias-free MLP acting as an adaptive linear filter. Removing all additive biases makes the network a locally linear and scale-invariant operator, $f_{\text{BF}}(x)=A_x x$, so the filtered embedding $f_a(\gamma(v)) \otimes \gamma(v)$ stays a frequency-domain modulation of the original coordinates. The theoretical floor comes from a neural tangent kernel (NTK) analysis: for a two-layer ReLU MLP on Fourier features, the NTK can be Taylor-expanded so that its eigenfunctions are approximately sinusoids whose frequencies are integer combinations of the sampled frequencies. The target function then decomposes into the span of those sinusoids and its orthogonal complement, and the loss is bounded by the energy in that complement. These are the pieces that carry the argument: the NTK expansion supplies a learned frequency span, and the bias-free filter supplies a mechanism to enlarge that span locally.

What would settle it

Take a target function whose Fourier energy outside the sampled frequency set is known and nonzero, train the INR far past convergence on that target, and measure the final residual. If the residual energy falls below the orthogonal-complement energy of the target, or if the residual is not concentrated at the unsampled frequencies, the lower-bound lemma is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a Fourier-feature embedded MLP whose training dynamics are approximated by the neural tangent kernel, the $L^2$ loss is bounded below by the norm of the component of the target function orthogonal to the span of the sampled frequencies, up to a convergence term. In other words, a finitely sampled Fourier embedding is not merely a hyperparameter choice but a hard performance floor. The paper's constructive counterpart is the adaptive linear filter $f_a(\gamma(v)) \otimes \gamma(v)$, implemented by an MLP with no additive biases. Because a bias-free ReLU network is locally linear and scale-invariant, multiplying the embedding entrywise by this learned filter preserves the frequency pattern of the signal. Trigonometry then shows that the Hadamard product of two embedding sinusoids creates sum and difference frequencies, so the filter can enrich the sampled frequency span while zeroing out harmful high-frequency components. The paper argues this reduces the loss floor, and its experiments on images, signed-distance shapes, and NeRF scenes show that the filtered embeddings beat the unfiltered baselines and several specialized INR architectures.

Load-bearing premise

The loss-floor proof assumes that a trained INR with Fourier features behaves like the neural tangent kernel of a two-layer MLP whose learned functions live in the span of the sampled frequencies; the experiments use deeper networks trained stochastically, so the bound has not been directly verified for those architectures.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the lower bound holds, then adding more parameters to the INR cannot remove the error caused by unsampled frequencies; only widening or shifting the sampled frequency set before training can do that.
  • Bias-free filters can be layered onto existing Fourier-feature pipelines without changing the INR's loss function, giving the gains shown on image, shape, and NeRF experiments.
  • Suppressing high-frequency channels in flat regions and amplifying them at boundaries should make the learned fields smoother in uniform areas while keeping detail, which matters for downstream geometry extraction and rendering.
  • Since the filter is continuous rather than grid-based, the same mechanism is applicable to coordinate regression problems where grids are not available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's proof assumes a two-layer NTK regime, but its robustness result under high embedding standard deviation suggests the filter's benefit may not depend on that regime; testing the ablation on a deliberately non-NTK architecture would separate the theorem from the mechanism.
  • If the loss-floor view is right, one could initialize the filter to mask frequencies known to be absent from the target, turning the adaptive filter into a learned prior; the paper does not explore this initialization.
  • The line-search result is demonstrated on image and NeRF tasks; a natural extension is to use the same relative learning-rate rule for coordinate networks with non-L2 losses, where the Taylor derivation would need to be rechecked.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper addresses noise and spectral-bias issues in Fourier-feature implicit neural representations (INRs). It proposes (i) an adaptive linear filter implemented as a bias-free ReLU MLP applied to the Fourier embedding via a Hadamard product, and (ii) a line-search-based learning-rate adjustment for that filter. The authors support this design with a theoretical analysis in Appendix I, claiming that unsampled frequency components of the embeddings provide a lower bound on the INR loss and that enriching the embedding frequencies reduces this lower bound. Experiments on Kodak image regression, Stanford 3D-shape regression, and NeRF Blender scenes report consistent improvements over MLP+PE, MLP+RFF, SIREN, GAUSS, WIRE, and BACON.

Significance. If the theoretical validation were correct, the paper would offer a principled explanation for the noisy outputs of Fourier-feature INRs and a practical method to suppress that noise while preserving high-frequency detail. The empirical results are consistently positive, and the ablations indicate that both the filter module and the line-search module contribute to the gains. However, the central theorem is not valid as stated, and the line-search derivation is also incorrect. Since the method's motivation in the abstract and Section 5 relies on these theoretical claims, the paper's main conceptual contribution is not established. The empirical method may still be useful, but the manuscript in its current form overstates the theoretical support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix I, Lemma I.6] The proof of Lemma I.6 is mathematically incorrect. Setting a = y†B and b = yB - f, the claimed lower bound ||y - f||^2 >= ||y†B||^2 - ||yB - f||^2 does not follow from the reverse triangle inequality; the reverse triangle inequality gives ||a + b|| >= | ||a|| - ||b|| |, which does not imply the stated quadratic inequality. In fact, because y†B and yB - f are orthogonal, Pythagoras's theorem gives the exact equality ||y - f||^2 = ||y†B||^2 + ||yB - f||^2. Thus the negative NTK term in the lemma is unjustified, and the theorem as stated is false. Although a corrected theorem could be obtained from the exact equality, the current statement and proof require substantial revision.
  2. [Appendix I, Lemma I.4 and Lemma I.6] The claim that the trained INR can be represented with frequencies only in the finite span of the sampled embedding frequencies is an artifact of truncating the Taylor expansion of arccos in Lemma I.4. The exact NTK kernel is F(γ(x)·γ(z)) = γ(x)·γ(z)(π - arccos(γ(x)·γ(z)))/(2π), whose power series has infinitely many terms; the k-th power of γ(x)·γ(z) contributes frequencies that are k-fold integer combinations of the sampled b_i, with k unbounded. For positional encoding with a unit on-axis frequency these combinations cover all integers, and for random Fourier features with incommensurate frequencies they are dense. Consequently, the exact NTK, let alone the deep ReLU networks trained in Section 6, is not bandlimited to the finite span defining y†B. The lower bound ∥y†B∥^2 is therefore not a property of the actual models evaluated, and the paper's statement that the adaptive filter reduces the achievable loss by lowering this bound is not supported.
  3. [Section 5.1] The frequency-enrichment derivation models the filter as o_i = Σ_j a_ij sin(b_j v) sin(b_i v) and uses the trigonometric identity to conclude that the filter can create frequencies b_i ± b_j. This treats the coefficients a_ij as constants with respect to v. In the proposed method, however, fa(·) is a multi-layer bias-free ReLU MLP, so A_x depends nonlinearly on γ(v); the matrix entries are piecewise constant functions of the input, and their global frequency content is not limited to the sampled b_j. Thus the claim that bias-free MLPs enrich the embedding frequencies as a linear filter does not follow from the given calculation. The distinction between the local matrix representation f(x) = A_x x and a globally linear filter needs to be addressed.
  4. [Appendix J.1, Algorithm 3] The line-search procedure is derived by minimizing a linear approximation ϕ(αA) ≈ k αA + b over a bounded interval. For a linear function, the constrained minimizer is at an endpoint of the interval (αmin if k > 0, αmax if k < 0), not at the root α = -b/k selected in Algorithm 3. The case analysis in lines 8–16 of Algorithm 3 does not correspond to this minimization problem. Additionally, the assertion that the second-order Taylor terms vanish because ReLU is piecewise linear ignores that the loss as a function of the full parameter vector remains nonlinear through the composition of layers. The proposed learning-rate adjustment is therefore not a correctly derived optimization method, and its favorable empirical effect needs to be justified differently.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix I, Theorem I.5] The displayed formula has a square on the left-hand side and a square root on the right-hand side; the intended norm ordering should be stated consistently, and the hypotheses of Arora et al. (full-batch training, width and learning-rate bounds) should be explicitly invoked before this theorem is used.
  2. [Appendix I, Lemma I.4] The notation is inconsistent around ℵ: it is defined as ||γ(x)|| ||γ(z)||, but later the factor 1/ℵ appears or is omitted in several lines of the derivation, and the Taylor coefficient (2n)!/(2^{2n}(n!)^2) misses the usual (2n+1) denominator from the arccos series.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption states that 'scale=512 can be considered to have standard deviation around 121' without explaining the conversion between the PE scale and the RFF standard deviation; this should be clarified.
  4. [Section 6.4] The text refers to 'Lambda Learning rate scheduler' and 'L' for the line-search; the scheduler should be properly named and cited, and the abbreviations in Table 4 should be defined in the caption.
  5. [Tables 1–3] The tables report single runs without variance or statistical significance; given the large reported improvements, at least a few repeated runs or error bars would strengthen the empirical claims.
  6. [Appendix J notation table] The symbol table in Appendix J defines p_t but not p_t^I and p_t^A until later in the text; a brief definition would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the lower-bound theorem follows from external NTK and orthogonal-decomposition results and is not defined in terms of the method's own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical claim—that unsampled frequency components of Fourier feature embeddings lower-bound achievable INR loss—is derived in Appendix I from an external NTK theorem (Arora et al., 2019) and external trigonometric lemmas (Yuce et al., 2022). Lemma I.6 applies orthogonal decomposition to a representation assumed bandlimited in the sampled frequency span; the lower bound is a direct mathematical consequence of that assumption rather than a quantity fitted from the paper's own experiments. The adaptive linear filter and its frequency-enrichment property are justified by an explicit trigonometric identity, not by circular reference to the method's success. The experimental sections benchmark against independent baselines and external datasets, and the line-search is a learning-rate adjustment mechanism rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No self-citations are load-bearing anywhere in the derivation. The gap between the two-layer NTK analysis and the deep stochastic networks actually trained, and the reverse-triangle-inequality step in Lemma I.6, are validity or correctness concerns rather than circularity. Hyperparameters such as filter depth and line-search bounds are tuned on the evaluation tasks, but hyperparameter tuning does not make the derivation circular. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theoretical claim rests on NTK-based harmonic expansion and on treating bias-free ReLU MLPs as locally linear filters; both are approximations invoked without a rigorous error bound for the deep networks actually trained. No new physical entities are postulated. Several hyperparameters, including filter depth and line-search bounds, are hand-picked or tuned on the evaluation tasks.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of filter layers = 3
    Appendix E sweeps filter depths 1 to 5 and selects 3 as the best; this is a tuned architectural hyperparameter.
  • Line-search max/min learning rate = 1e-3 to 0
    Set by hand in Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3; the behavior of the training dynamics depends on these bounds.
  • Armijo constant c1 and stability epsilon = c1 = 1e-3, epsilon = 1e-6
    Declared in Appendix J.1; standard line-search constants but required to reproduce the algorithm.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The two-layer NTK convergence theorem of Arora et al. applies to the networks under test.
    Theorem I.5 is invoked in Lemma I.6, but its conditions require full-batch training and overparameterized two-layer networks, while experiments use deeper networks and stochastic training.
  • domain assumption The NTK eigenfunctions of an MLP with Fourier features are approximately sinusoids in the span of the sampled frequencies.
    Lemma I.4 derives this using a truncated Taylor expansion of arccos; the approximation error is not analyzed and the result is not shown to hold for deep architectures.
  • standard math Bias-free ReLU MLPs are exactly locally linear and scale-invariant.
    Used as Lemma 3.2 and 3.3 from Mohan et al. to justify the adaptive linear filter; accepted for bias-free ReLU networks.
  • standard math The target function admits an L2 Fourier decomposition and can be orthogonally decomposed into a spanned and an orthogonal frequency subspace.
    Used in Lemma I.6 to separate the loss into an irreducible component and a learnable component; standard Fourier analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robustifying Fourier Features Embeddings for Implicit Neural Representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSCKK223

@misc{pith2026250205482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robustifying Fourier Features Embeddings for Implicit Neural Representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSCKK223}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05482}
}
read the original abstract

Implicit Neural Representations (INRs) employ neural networks to represent continuous functions by mapping coordinates to the corresponding values of the target function, with applications e.g., inverse graphics. However, INRs face a challenge known as spectral bias when dealing with scenes containing varying frequencies. To overcome spectral bias, the most common approach is the Fourier features-based methods such as positional encoding. However, Fourier features-based methods will introduce noise to output, which degrades their performances when applied to downstream tasks. In response, this paper initially hypothesizes that combining multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) with Fourier feature embeddings mutually enhances their strengths, yet simultaneously introduces limitations inherent in Fourier feature embeddings. By presenting a simple theorem, we validate our hypothesis, which serves as a foundation for the design of our solution. Leveraging these insights, we propose the use of multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) without additive

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05482 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. As illustrated at the circled blue regions and green re￾gions, it can be observed that even with well-chosen standard deviation/scale, as experimented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We test the performance of MLPs with Random Fourier Features (RFF) and MLPs with Positional Encoding (PE) on a 1024- resolution image to better distinguish between high- and low-frequency regions, as demonstrated on the left-hand side of this figure. We find that the performance of MLPs+RFF degrades rapidly with increasing standard deviation compared with MLPs+PE. Since positional encoding is deterministic, scale=51… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We demonstrate our hypothesis by using three models (MLPs, Fourier features with one linear layer and their combination (i.e. MLPs with Fourier features embeddings)) to fit two kinds of functions. The result demonstrate that combining MLPs with Fourier Features can actually combine their representation capability. These highlighted red boxes demonstrate that MLPs with Fourier features also involve the representation… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The pipeline of our method introduces two additional modules compared to the original approach. The first module, an adaptive linear filter, removes unnecessary frequency components at the pixel level, reducing high-frequency noise during regression. The second module …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The black boxes highlight frequency bands with varying phases or frequencies, supporting our derivation that the adaptive linear filter can enrich the embeddings. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For the image regression task, our method can reach SOTA performance. It can be observed for the reconstruction quality of the window part in the image is the best without much noise and clear structure. 6.2. 3D-Shape Regression We evaluate our method on the Signed-Dis…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the 3D shape regression task shows that our method can smooth the surface while maintain detail structures. 6.3. Neural Radiance Field Experiments This section explores the application of Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF) for fitting 3D scenes, focusing on…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: It can be observed that the reconstruction quality of the lego bucket remains high even at low resolutions when using our method. method learning rate scheduler is still necessary for the INRs part, therefore, we use Lambda Learning rate scheduler which is the most com…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: By comparing the value of loss function for Fourier features plus one linear layer, MLPs and their combination, it can be found that MLPs more good at fitting spatial compact function like spike function and Fourier features can fit sinusoidal function well. Through co…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: We demonstrate the convergence of the modified line-search algorithm through image regression experiments for RFF and PE. During training, both the PSNR and the learning rate consistently converge, confirming the effectiveness of our proposed line-search-based approac…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: , unlike the results presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: As the number of filter layers increases to 3, performance reaches its peak with around 52.7 PSNR and 47.5 PSNR respectively, but begins to decline with further increases in layers. 3 6 9 12 15 Number of Layers 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Mean Value of PSNR PSNR vs Number…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Performance increases with additional layers up to 12 with around 44 PSNR and 41 PSNR respectively, but starts to diminish beyond that point. filter. For the image regression task where it requires overfitting, the difference for the bias and bias-free MLPs may not be…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The blue line is the optimization target, while the orange lines indicate the predefined learning rate bounds, denoted as αmin and αmax. p t A and p t I are the update directions for the filter and INRs, respectively. α ∗ is the optimal value and ϵ is a constant for r…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Visualization of the filtered embedding for image 804 in the DIV2K validation split. G.T. Image G.T. Embedding Filtered Embedding Channel=13 Channel=176 Channel=241 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Compared to Random Fourier Features, which involve more complex combinations of frequency components, Positional Encoding displays more regular frequency patterns, making it better suited for visualization. These visualizations demonstrate that in low-frequency region…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Theorem I.5 (Theorem 4.1 in Arora et al

    15 Robustifying Fourier Features Embeddings for Implicit Neural Representations k(γ(x), γ(z)) = ⟨γ(x), γ(z)⟩(π − arccos(⟨γ(x), γ(z)⟩) 2π Denoting ||γ(x)||||γ(z)|| as ℵ = Pm i=1 cos(2πbi(z − x))(π − arccos( 1 ℵ Pm i=1 cos(2πbi(z − x)))) 2πℵ By N-order approximation Taylor Expansion of arccos(·) = 1 2πℵ ( mX i=1 cos(2πbi(z − x))× ( π 2 + NX k=1 (2n)! 22n (n...

  2. [2]

    Implicit geometric regularization for learning shapes

    Gropp, A., Yariv, L., Haim, N., Atzmon, M., and Lipman, Y . Implicit geometric regularization for learning shapes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.10099,

  3. [5]

    K., Jack, D., Baktashmotlagh, M., and Eriksson, A

    Michalkiewicz, M., Pontes, J. K., Jack, D., Baktashmotlagh, M., and Eriksson, A. Implicit surface representations as layers in neural networks. In 2019 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 4742–4751,

  4. [6]

    bias term tested on the NeRF task

    The result of adaptive linear filter w/w.o. bias term tested on the NeRF task. Bias MLP+PE Bias-free MLP+PE Bias MLP+RFF Bias-free MLP+RFF PSNR↑ 31.17 31.45 30.18 30.70 SSIM↑ 0.9563 0.9596 0.9476 0.9542 LPIPS↓ 0.0201 0.0172 0.0293 0.0232 G. Definition of High-dimensional Fourier Series For a d-dimensional periodic function f (x) with input x = [x1, x2, · ...

  5. [7]

    P., and Fernandez-Granda, C

    Mohan, S., Kadkhodaie, Z., Simoncelli, E. P., and Fernandez-Granda, C. Robust and interpretable blind image denoising via bias-free convolutional neural net- works. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05478,

  6. [8]

    Neural Gaussian Scale-Space Fields

    Mujkanovic, F., Nsampi, N. E., Theobalt, C., Seidel, H.-P., and Leimk¨uhler, T. Neural gaussian scale-space fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20980,

  7. [10]

    A sampling theory perspective on acti- vations for implicit neural representations

    Saratchandran, H., Ramasinghe, S., Shevchenko, V ., Long, A., and Lucey, S. A sampling theory perspective on acti- vations for implicit neural representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05427,

  8. [12]

    Spline Positional Encoding for Learning 3D Implicit Signed Distance Fields

    Wang, P.-S., Liu, Y ., Yang, Y .-Q., and Tong, X. Spline posi- tional encoding for learning 3d implicit signed distance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01553,

Show all 17 references
  1. [13]

    Comparison with SAPE There might be arguing that our proposed method is similar to SAPE (Hertz et al., 2021)

    10 Robustifying Fourier Features Embeddings for Implicit Neural Representations A. Comparison with SAPE There might be arguing that our proposed method is similar to SAPE (Hertz et al., 2021). However, from our perspective, we differ from this work in the following points: • O...

  2. [14]

    The learning rates of the adaptive linear filter steadily decrease throughout training, ultimately converging to 0, confirming the algorithm’s stability and convergence by the end of training. 11 Robustifying Fourier Features Embeddings for Implicit Neural Representations 0 20...

  3. [2016]

    Pumarola, A., Corona, E., Pons-Moll, G., and Moreno- Noguer, F

    doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2016.08.032. Pumarola, A., Corona, E., Pons-Moll, G., and Moreno- Noguer, F. D-nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 10318– 10327,

  4. [2019]

    Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P

    doi: 10.1109/ICCV .2019.00484. Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P. P., Tancik, M., Barron, J. T., Ramamoorthi, R., and Ng, R. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communica- tions of the ACM, 65(1):99–106,

  5. [2020]

    Adaptive learning rate and momentum for training deep neural net- works

    Hao, Z., Jiang, Y ., Yu, H., and Chiang, H.-D. Adaptive learning rate and momentum for training deep neural net- works. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Research Track: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2021, Bilbao, Spain, September 13–17, 2021, Proceedi...

  6. [2021]

    S., and Cabral, R

    Landgraf, Z., Hornung, A. S., and Cabral, R. S. Pins: pro- gressive implicit networks for multi-scale neural repre- sentations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.04713,

  7. [2022]

    Lemma I.1

    where they show that the INRs with embeddings can be decomposed into the Fourier basis, we view the INRs with Fourier features embeddings from the perspective of Neural Tangent Kernels and derive a similar result about the Harmonic expansion of the INRs. Lemma I.1. (Y¨uce et a...

  8. [2023]

    N., and Shri- vastava, A

    Chen, H., He, B., Wang, H., Ren, Y ., Lim, S. N., and Shri- vastava, A. Nerv: Neural representations for videos. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 21557–21568, 2021a. Chen, Y ., Liu, S., and Wang, X. Learning continuous image representation with local impl...

  9. [2024]

    Shenouda, J., Zhou, Y ., and Nowak, R. D. Relus are suffi- cient for learning implicit neural representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02529,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.