Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

GS-KAN shares one B-spline per layer across all edges, dropping KAN parameter counts to MLP levels while matching or beating baselines on function approximation, tabular regression, and high-dimensional image classification.

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 17:31 UTC pith:QZZZ7EJC

load-bearing objection A plausible parameter-efficient KAN variant, but the parameter tables contradict the paper's own architecture equation, and the test-set-based evaluation protocol inflates the results. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.09084 v3 pith:QZZZ7EJC submitted 2025-12-09 cs.LG

GS-KAN: Parameter-Efficient Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks via Sprecher-Type Shared Basis Functions

Oscar Eliasson This is my paper
classification cs.LG MSC 68T0541A15
keywords Kolmogorov-Arnold networksparameter efficiencyshared basis functionsB-splinessuperposition theoremfunction approximationhigh-dimensional classification
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 argues that the parameter explosion that plagues Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks can be avoided without giving up their expressive edge functions. Instead of learning a unique spline for every network edge, GS-KAN learns one shared B-spline per layer and derives each edge function by a learnable per-edge scaling plus a learnable per-node translation. The result is a layer whose parameter count grows like an MLP's (one weight per edge plus one small shared spline), and the paper reports that this shared-basis design matches or beats MLPs and standard KANs on continuous function approximation, tabular regression, and a high-dimensional image classification task while using fewer parameters. If these results hold, spline-based KANs become practical in high-dimensional, memory-constrained settings.

Core claim

The central claim is that edge functions in a KAN layer can be replaced by linear transformations (scale and shift) of a single shared learnable B-spline, reducing per-layer parameters from O(N_in·N_out·C) to O(N_in·N_out + C) without sacrificing approximation quality. The paper formulates the layer as y_q = Σ_p λ_{p,q} ψ_l(x_p + ε_q), where ψ_l is a shared cubic B-spline, λ are per-edge weights, and ε are per-node shifts. It then shows empirically that this relaxed formulation outperforms MLPs and standard KANs on a 2D high-frequency regression, is competitive on California Housing, and beats an MLP on Fashion-MNIST with roughly 5% fewer parameters.

What carries the argument

The shared-basis layer: one learnable cubic B-spline ψ_l per layer, applied to each shifted input x_p + ε_q and scaled by a per-edge weight λ_{p,q} before summation. This is the relaxation of the exact superposition theorem that swaps the theorem's fixed constants for learned parameters, and it is what breaks the N_in·N_out·C scaling of standard KANs, because spline resolution (C) is no longer multiplied by the edge count.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that a single shared B-spline per layer, rescaled and shifted independently per edge, is expressive enough when stacked to approximate the functions that matter in practice, and that most activations will stay inside the fixed spline domain during training; no theorem guarantees either.

What would settle it

Take a continuous target function whose exact Kolmogorov-Arnold inner functions are known not to be affine transforms of each other—for example f(x_1,...,x_d) = Σ_i a_i sin(ω_i x_i) with ω_i spanning several orders of magnitude—and train GS-KAN and a standard KAN under the same parameter budget. If GS-KAN's test error degrades dramatically while the standard KAN does not, the shared-basis relaxation is the bottleneck. Tracking the fraction of hidden activations that fall outside [-G,G] during training would also reveal whether the static grid silently disables learning.

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

If this is right

  • Spline-based KANs become deployable on high-dimensional inputs, such as flattened images, under strict memory budgets where standard KANs are infeasible.
  • With equal parameters, GS-KAN can afford wider/deeper layers and more knots than a standard KAN, which the paper shows improves approximation of high-frequency functions.
  • If the reported gains generalize, shared-basis learnable activations provide a stronger per-parameter inductive bias than fixed activations like ReLU or SiLU in low-budget regimes.
  • The architecture gives a practical template for turning exact representation theorems into trainable networks by replacing pathological fractal functions with smooth splines plus learned linear transformations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The shared-template-plus-adapter design is a general recipe: any parametric basis family (RBFs, wavelets, etc.) could replace B-splines and inherit the same parameter savings, a direction the paper itself flags as future work.
  • The static-grid strategy is the main unexamined risk: if latent activations drift outside [-G,G], gradients vanish; monitoring the fraction of activations in-domain during training would test whether the implicit batch-level adaptation actually keeps most activations inside.
  • The theoretical link to the superposition theorem is suggestive rather than established, since no universal approximation result or expressivity bound is proved for the relaxed shared-basis layer; the claim currently rests on the three benchmarks.
  • A natural stress test is to apply GS-KAN to target functions whose optimal edge functions are not affine copies of one template (e.g., sums of sinusoids with widely differing frequencies) and compare against a full per-edge KAN under the same parameter cap.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GS-KAN, a Kolmogorov-Arnold-style architecture in which each layer maintains a single shared learnable B-spline psi_l, adapted per edge by a scalar lambda_{p,q} and per node by a shift epsilon_q (Eq. 4). The authors claim this reduces the per-layer parameter count to O(N_in * N_out + C), i.e. MLP-level complexity, and provide experiments on a synthetic 2-D function, California Housing regression, and Fashion-MNIST classification. The reported results claim that GS-KAN matches or exceeds MLP and standard KAN baselines while using fewer parameters or a comparable budget, and that it enables spline-based KANs in high-dimensional settings where standard KANs are infeasible.

Significance. If the claims were substantiated, GS-KAN would be a practically valuable KAN variant: it is simple, fully differentiable, and the shared-basis idea directly addresses the well-known parameter explosion of standard KANs. The conceptual link to Sprecher's refinement is attractive, and the Fashion-MNIST result in Table III is plausible and internally consistent with Eq. (4). The paper also includes a public code repository and repeats experiments over three seeds. However, the main empirical support is compromised by inconsistencies in the reported parameter counts and by a test-set selection protocol, and the theoretical inheritance from Sprecher's theorem is asserted rather than proven. These issues are load-bearing because the central contribution is precisely parameter efficiency and empirical superiority.

major comments (4)
  1. [Tables I and II vs. Eq. (4) and Sec. III-C] The printed parameter counts for GS-KAN contradict the architecture definition. For Table I, [2,10,10,1] with K=20, d=3 gives N_c=K-d-1=16; Eq. (4) yields (2*10+10+16)+(10*10+10+16)+(10*1+1+16)=46+126+27=199 parameters, not 1908. Similarly, [2,16,16,1] with K=50 yields 94+318+63=475, not 4781. The table values are roughly 10x larger and appear consistent with standard KAN's per-edge spline parameterization, not shared-basis GS-KAN. The same issue appears in Table II. Section IV-A states GS-KAN uses the fewest learnable parameters, but the table lists MLP (205/501) and Wav-KAN (210/501) with far fewer. This is a direct contradiction of the central parameter-efficiency claim; the authors must reconcile the counts or rerun the experiments with the actual shared-basis architecture.
  2. [Sec. IV-B and Tables I-III] The evaluation protocol reports 'the best test metric (MSE or Accuracy) achieved during training' for every model. Choosing the best test metric over training epochs is a form of test-set model selection; it overstates performance and biases comparisons among architectures with different optimization dynamics. The paper justifies this as 'simulating an optimal early-stopping strategy,' but early stopping uses a validation set, not the test set. All conclusions from Tables I-III are therefore not statistically valid as reported. The authors should either fix a training budget and report the final test metric, or select checkpoints on a held-out validation split and report the corresponding test metric.
  3. [Sec. V and Sec. III-A] The paper claims that the learnable lambda_{p,q} and epsilon_q 'encompass' the fixed constants required by Sprecher's theorem as a subset, and that GS-KAN 'retains the mathematical properties' of Kolmogorov-Arnold networks. This is asserted but not demonstrated. Eq. (4) uses one shared psi_l per layer with arbitrary per-edge weights; the classical Sprecher/Kolmogorov construction uses a particular outer function and particular powers of a constant. No universal-approximation or expressivity theorem is given for the relaxed form. If the relaxed form is too constrained, the claim of inheritance from Sprecher is unsupported. At minimum, the theorem-related claims should be restated as heuristic motivation, or a formal statement with proof should be added.
  4. [Table I and Sec. IV-A] The MLP baseline on the synthetic crossed-wave task reports MSE about 0.255 in both regimes, which is essentially the variance of the target and indicates the baseline has not learned the function at all. The paper attributes this to 'the inherent difficulty networks face in modelling high-frequency periodicities,' but with 150 epochs and a few hundred parameters, a well-tuned MLP should at least partly fit sin(3*pi*x)*cos(3*pi*y). The order-of-magnitude 'superiority' over MLPs is therefore a weak form of evidence; it may reflect poor optimization of the MLP rather than the expressive advantage of GS-KAN. This should be acknowledged and ideally addressed with a stronger MLP baseline or a sensitivity check on MLP training.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II-C, Eq. (3)] The notation in Eq. (3) is easy to misread: lambda appears as 'lambda p·q' without a visible exponent. The exposition says 'power term lambda^{p·q}' but the displayed formula should be typeset consistently to avoid confusion with a per-edge lambda_{p,q}.
  2. [Sec. III-C] The parameter comparison omits epsilon_q and possible biases for MLP and GS-KAN. That is fine for asymptotics, but the text should state that the exact counts in the tables include these terms; otherwise Table I appears even more inconsistent with the analysis.
  3. [Sec. IV-A, footnote] The footnote defines N_c=K-d-1 for GS-KAN and N_c=G+d for Std-KAN. It would be helpful to state whether K denotes the number of intervals or number of knots, since the formula and the parameter counts depend on this convention.
  4. [Sec. V] The phrase 'superior accuracy-per-parameter ratios' is stronger than the reported tables: on California Housing, GS-KAN is not always the best in its regime and never reaches Std-KAN's best Small-regime MSE. Suggest softening this claim.
  5. [General] The paper would benefit from a diagram or pseudocode showing exactly how one GS-KAN layer is constructed and how the parameter count is computed in code. Given the Table I/II discrepancy, this would greatly help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the parameter-efficiency claim is a direct count from Eq. (4), and no fitted result is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The central parameter-complexity claim follows directly from the architecture definition: Eq. (4) uses one shared spline ψ_l per layer (contributing C parameters) and a per-edge weight matrix λ_{p,q} (contributing N_in·N_out parameters), giving the O(N_in·N_out + C) count reported in Section III-C. This is a direct counting argument, not a prediction derived from fitted values or from a self-citation. Sprecher's theorem is cited as an external mathematical result, and the paper's relaxation of fixed constants into learnable parameters is a superset argument; even if the expressivity of the relaxed form is unproved, that is an open correctness/expressivity concern rather than circularity. The author's Bachelor's thesis is cited only as historical provenance for the core concept and is not load-bearing for the experiments or the parameter-efficiency derivation. The apparent inconsistencies in the reported parameter counts are internal-consistency or correctness issues, not evidence that a claimed prediction reduces to its own inputs. Under the required evidentiary standard, no circular step can be identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the expressivity of the shared-basis layer and the validity of the empirical protocol. I listed the hand-chosen grid/domain/architecture choices as free parameters, the cited representation theorems and the unproved relaxation as axioms, and the shared parent function as the paper's core architectural postulate. No physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Spline knot count K per layer = K=20, 20, 50, 60 depending on experiment
    Chosen by hand per task/regime; controls basis resolution and is not derived from the theory. It directly affects GS-KAN capacity and reported results.
  • Spline domain [-G, G] = [-1,1] for synthetic; [-3,3] for tabular and Fashion-MNIST
    Static domain chosen by hand; the method assumes activations stay in this interval or that batch gradients remain informative otherwise.
  • Layer widths/depths per parameter regime = e.g., [2,10,10,1], [8,18,18,1], [784,15,15,10]
    Architectures were adjusted to match parameter budgets; results may be sensitive to these choices.
  • Training hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size) = not reported
    Adam is stated but LR/batch size are omitted; these affect all reported numbers and are not justified.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem (Thm 2) and Sprecher refinement (Thm 3) hold as stated.
    Assumed background from cited literature; used as motivation for the shared-basis design in Sect. II-B/C.
  • ad hoc to paper The relaxation to per-edge λ_{p,q} and per-node ε_q preserves enough representational power for the tested tasks.
    No theorem or proof is given for the relaxed layer (Eq. 4); the paper asserts it is a subset of the theorem's solution space in Sect. V without demonstration.
  • domain assumption The static B-spline domain [-G,G] keeps most activations in range during training; out-of-range samples yield zero local gradients but batch aggregates remain informative.
    Stated in Sect. III-B3; if a large fraction of activations falls outside the grid, training would stall, yet no monitoring/fraction is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper The evaluation protocol of reporting the best test metric across training epochs is a valid way to compare architectures.
    The paper explicitly uses this in Sect. IV Training Protocol, but it leaks test information and is not a standard model-selection procedure.
invented entities (1)
  • Per-layer shared B-spline parent function ψ_l no independent evidence
    purpose: Replaces per-edge splines with a single learnable function per layer, adapted by scalars λ and shifts ε; this is the core memory-saving mechanism.
    No external or theoretical evidence establishes this entity's sufficiency; only the paper's own benchmarks support it.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 7659 in / 19831 out tokens · 198496 ms · 2026-08-03T17:31:04.756934+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem offers a theoretical alternative to Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLPs) by placing learnable univariate functions on edges rather than nodes. While recent implementations such as Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs) demonstrate high approximation capabilities, they suffer from significant parameter inefficiency due to the requirement of maintaining unique parameterizations for every network edge. In this work, we propose GS-KAN (Generalized Sprecher-KAN), a lightweight architecture inspired by David Sprecher's refinement of the superposition theorem. GS-KAN constructs unique edge functions by applying learnable linear transformations to a single learnable, shared parent function per layer. We evaluate GS-KAN against existing KAN architectures and MLPs across synthetic function approximation, tabular data regression and image classification tasks. Our results demonstrate that GS-KAN outperforms both MLPs and standard KAN baselines on continuous function approximation tasks while maintaining superior parameter efficiency. Additionally, GS-KAN achieves competitive performance with existing KAN architectures on tabular regression and outperforms MLPs on high-dimensional classification tasks. Crucially, the proposed architecture enables the deployment of KAN-based architectures in high-dimensional regimes under strict parameter constraints, a setting where standard implementations are typically infeasible due to parameter explosion. The source code is available at https://github.com/rambamn48/gs-impl.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09084 by Oscar Eliasson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Edge-Node Computation Comparison. Left: Standard KAN learns a unique function ϕq,p for every connection. Right: GS-KAN learns a single shared basis ψ and adapts it to each edge via learnable scalars λ and shifts ϵ. The node yq aggregates the results. 2) Independent Translation (ϵ · q → ϵq): We replace the fixed shift term (typically scaled by index q) with independent learnable parameters ϵq, allowing for … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Function Approximation Visualization. Left: The ground truth function f(x, y) = sin(3πx) · cos(3πy) (noise￾less). Right: The approximation generated by GS-KAN (Mi￾cro configuration, ≈ 500 parameters). Notably, the model effectively captures high-frequency structures and sharp peaks despite strict parameter constraints, a regime where MLPs typically suffer from over-smoothing. TABLE I: Function Approximatio… 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. SechKAN: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks with Hyperbolic Secant Functions

    cs.LG 2026-06 conditional novelty 4.0

    SechKAN combines sech basis functions with a 1D linear projection to build a KAN-style model whose parameter count matches MLPs and which is competitive or better than several KAN variants on tested benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

9 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function,

    G. Cybenko, “Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function,” Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 303–314, 1989

    1989

  2. [2]

    Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward net- works,

    K. Hornik, “Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward net- works,”Neural Networks, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 251–257, 1991

    1991

  3. [3]

    KAN: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks,

    Z. Liuet al., “KAN: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19756, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Wav-KAN: Wavelet Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks,

    Z. Bozorgasl and H. Chen, “Wav-KAN: Wavelet Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12832, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    On the structure of continuous functions of several variables,

    D. A. Sprecher, “On the structure of continuous functions of several variables,”Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 115, pp. 340–355, 1965

    1965

  6. [6]

    On the representation of continuous functions of many variables by superposition of continuous functions of one variable and addition,

    A. Kolmogorov, “On the representation of continuous functions of many variables by superposition of continuous functions of one variable and addition,”American Mathematical Society Translations, vol. 28, pp. 55– 59, 1963

    1963

  7. [7]

    A note on computing with Kolmogorov Superpositions without iterations,

    R. Demb and D. A. Sprecher, “A note on computing with Kolmogorov Superpositions without iterations,”Neural Networks, vol. 144, pp. 438– 442, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Sprecher Networks: A Parameter-Efficient Kolmogorov-Arnold Architecture,

    C. Hägg, K. Kohn, G. L. Marchetti, and B. Shapiro, “Sprecher Networks: A Parameter-Efficient Kolmogorov-Arnold Architecture,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.19367, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Kolmogorov- Arnold Networks: the Future of AI?,

    O. Eliasson, J. Larsen, A. Malmquist, and M. Redin, “Kolmogorov- Arnold Networks: the Future of AI?,” Bachelor’s thesis, Chalmers Uni- versity of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2025

    2025