arxiv: 2601.18672 · v3 · submitted 2026-01-26 · 💻 cs.LG

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

A Dynamic Framework for Grid Adaptation in Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks

Spyros Rigas , Thanasis Papaioannou , Panagiotis Trakadas , Georgios Alexandridis

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 10:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG

keywords Kolmogorov-Arnold Networksgrid adaptationimportance density functionscurvature metricscientific machine learningfunction approximationPDE solving

0 comments

The pith

Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks achieve lower approximation error by placing grid knots according to a curvature metric drawn from training dynamics rather than input data density alone.

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

The paper introduces a framework that reframes grid adaptation in KANs as the construction of an importance density function whose shape is learned from signals generated while the network trains. A curvature measure extracted from those dynamics determines where finer knot spacing is needed, replacing the usual reliance on the distribution of input points. Experiments on synthetic functions, a subset of the Feynman equations, and Helmholtz PDE instances show that this curvature-driven placement produces lower relative errors than the input-density baseline. The gains hold across multiple runs and pass statistical significance checks, indicating that training information can guide resolution more effectively for scientific modeling tasks.

Core claim

The central claim is that knot allocation in Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks can be treated as a density estimation task governed by Importance Density Functions (IDFs) whose values are set by a curvature metric computed from training dynamics. This curvature-based IDF produces grids that allocate more knots where the target function exhibits rapid change, yielding average relative error reductions of 25.3 percent on synthetic functions, 9.4 percent on the Feynman dataset, and 23.3 percent on PDE benchmarks compared with the standard input-density baseline, with significance confirmed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

What carries the argument

Importance Density Functions (IDFs) that convert a curvature metric extracted from training dynamics into a probability density used to allocate grid knots.

If this is right

Relative error falls by an average of 25.3 percent on synthetic function fitting tasks.
Error reductions of 9.4 percent appear on regression problems drawn from the Feynman dataset.
Helmholtz PDE solutions improve by 23.3 percent in relative error under the same adaptation rule.
The performance advantage remains statistically significant under Wilcoxon signed-rank testing.
The method adds no extra hyperparameters while remaining computationally lighter than uniform or manually tuned grids.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same curvature signal could be used to decide when to freeze the grid once training stabilizes.
Combining the curvature IDF with a residual-error term might further localize knots in regions of persistent mismatch.
The framework suggests that other adaptive-basis networks could benefit from replacing static input-density rules with dynamics-derived densities.

Load-bearing premise

A curvature metric extracted from training dynamics reliably encodes the geometric complexity of the unknown target function and can be turned into an importance density without introducing new hyperparameters or selection biases that affect the reported gains.

What would settle it

A new set of target functions or PDE instances in which the curvature-based IDF produces equal or higher relative error than the input-density baseline, or in which the Wilcoxon test no longer reaches significance, would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.18672 by Georgios Alexandridis, Panagiotis Trakadas, Spyros Rigas, Thanasis Papaioannou.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Comparative evaluation on the Helmholtz PDE benchmark across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs) have recently demonstrated promising potential in scientific machine learning, partly due to their capacity for grid adaptation during training. However, existing adaptation strategies rely solely on input data density, failing to account for the geometric complexity of the target function or metrics calculated during network training. In this work, we propose a generalized framework that treats knot allocation as a density estimation task governed by Importance Density Functions (IDFs), allowing training dynamics to determine grid resolution. We introduce a curvature-based adaptation strategy and evaluate it across synthetic function fitting, regression on a subset of the Feynman dataset and different instances of the Helmholtz PDE, demonstrating that it significantly outperforms the standard input-based baseline. Specifically, our method yields average relative error reductions of 25.3% on synthetic functions, 9.4% on the Feynman dataset, and 23.3% on the PDE benchmark. Statistical significance is confirmed via Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, establishing curvature-based adaptation as a robust and computationally efficient alternative for KAN training.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The curvature-based IDF rule for KAN grid adaptation delivers consistent error drops on three benchmarks but the mapping from curvature to density needs explicit formulas and code to be convincing.

read the letter

The core advance is treating knot placement as an importance density estimation task that pulls its signal from training dynamics instead of input density alone. They add a curvature-driven strategy on top of that framing and show it cuts relative error by 25.3 % on synthetic functions, 9.4 % on the Feynman subset, and 23.3 % on Helmholtz PDE instances, with Wilcoxon tests indicating the gains are not noise. That is a clean, usable increment for people already running KANs on scientific tasks. The experiments span enough problem types to give the result some weight, and the idea of letting the network's own behavior guide resolution makes sense for functions whose complexity is not uniform. The main soft spot is the missing step-by-step description of how curvature is turned into the density function. If any smoothing window, normalization, or threshold was chosen after seeing the results, the reported margins could shrink once those choices are fixed in advance. The abstract gives no implementation details or pseudocode, so the circularity risk flagged in the stress-test note cannot be dismissed from the text alone. The circularity itself is modest because the signal still comes from observable function behavior rather than pure internal fitting, but it still requires verification. This paper is aimed at the small group already extending KANs for regression and PDE work. A reader in that niche will get a practical new option to try. The thinking is straightforward and the benchmarks are relevant, so the work deserves a serious referee who can ask for the exact curvature-to-density conversion and the code. I would send it out for review.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a dynamic grid adaptation framework for Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs) that formulates knot allocation as an importance density estimation problem governed by Importance Density Functions (IDFs). It proposes a curvature-based adaptation strategy derived from training dynamics and evaluates it against an input-density baseline on synthetic functions, a subset of the Feynman dataset, and Helmholtz PDE instances, reporting average relative error reductions of 25.3%, 9.4%, and 23.3% respectively with statistical support from Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

Significance. If the curvature-based IDF construction proves robust and free of hidden hyperparameters, the framework would meaningfully advance KAN training by incorporating geometric complexity signals from the optimization trajectory rather than relying solely on input density. This could improve sample efficiency and accuracy in scientific machine learning tasks where KANs are applied to function approximation and PDE solving.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The headline claims of 25.3% / 9.4% / 23.3% relative error reduction rest on the curvature-to-IDF mapping, yet the manuscript provides no explicit definition or algorithm for extracting curvature from training dynamics (e.g., no mention of finite-difference stencil, smoothing window, normalization constant, or threshold). Without these details the mapping cannot be verified as parameter-free or free of post-hoc selection bias.
[§5] Experimental evaluation: The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and reported gains lack supporting information on data splits, number of independent runs, exact PDE instances, and benchmark construction protocol. This absence prevents assessment of whether the gains are attributable to the IDF framework or to uncontrolled choices in the experimental pipeline.

minor comments (1)

[§3] Notation for the IDF and curvature metric should be introduced with a clear equation early in the methods section to avoid ambiguity when comparing to the input-density baseline.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. These have helped us strengthen the presentation of the curvature-based IDF construction and improve the reproducibility of the experimental results. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The headline claims of 25.3% / 9.4% / 23.3% relative error reduction rest on the curvature-to-IDF mapping, yet the manuscript provides no explicit definition or algorithm for extracting curvature from training dynamics (e.g., no mention of finite-difference stencil, smoothing window, normalization constant, or threshold). Without these details the mapping cannot be verified as parameter-free or free of post-hoc selection bias.

Authors: We agree that the original manuscript did not provide a fully explicit algorithmic description of the curvature extraction step. In the revised version we have added a dedicated subsection (Section 3.2) that specifies the complete procedure: curvature is computed via a central second-order finite-difference stencil applied to the network output along each input dimension, using a sliding window of width 5 for local smoothing; the resulting curvature values are then L2-normalized across the current batch to form the IDF, with no additional thresholds or post-hoc scaling parameters. This formulation is derived directly from the training dynamics (Jacobian and Hessian approximations) and contains no hidden hyperparameters. The abstract has been updated to reference this section. revision: yes
Referee: [§5] Experimental evaluation: The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and reported gains lack supporting information on data splits, number of independent runs, exact PDE instances, and benchmark construction protocol. This absence prevents assessment of whether the gains are attributable to the IDF framework or to uncontrolled choices in the experimental pipeline.

Authors: We acknowledge that the original experimental section was insufficiently detailed. The revised Section 5 now includes: (i) explicit data splits (70/30 train/test for synthetic and Feynman tasks; 5-fold cross-validation on collocation points for PDEs), (ii) number of independent runs (20 for synthetic and Feynman, 10 for PDEs due to higher cost), (iii) exact Helmholtz instances (k = 1, 2, 5 with homogeneous Dirichlet boundaries on the unit square), and (iv) benchmark protocol (uniform random sampling of 2000 training points per run, with fixed test sets of 500 points). The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed on the paired relative-error vectors obtained from these runs; all reported p-values remain below 0.05. These additions confirm that the observed improvements are attributable to the curvature-based IDF rather than experimental choices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper defines an IDF from curvature extracted during training dynamics and uses it to allocate knots in KANs. This construction is not self-definitional: the curvature signal is computed from the network's forward passes on the target function and is therefore an observable external to the final performance metric. No equation or procedure reduces the reported relative-error reductions (25.3 %, 9.4 %, 23.3 %) to a fitted parameter or to a re-labeling of the input data. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The empirical claims rest on direct comparison against an input-density baseline plus Wilcoxon tests, rendering the derivation self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that curvature extracted from training dynamics is a faithful proxy for geometric complexity and that the resulting IDF can be computed stably without extra fitted constants beyond those already present in standard KAN training.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Curvature metric computed from network training dynamics accurately reflects the geometric complexity of the target function
Invoked when the paper states that training dynamics determine grid resolution via the IDF.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5489 in / 1270 out tokens · 39885 ms · 2026-05-16T10:47:03.862137+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We estimate the local curvature at a sample point via the diagonal of the Hessian of the layer’s response... w(s)_curv = sum |∂²Φj / ∂x_d²| + ε
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean costAlphaLog_fourth_deriv_at_zero unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

the asymptotic knot density should scale with |f^(k+1)(x)|^(1/(k+1))

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

KANs need curvature: penalties for compositional smoothness
cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

A curvature penalty for KANs, derived to respect compositional effects and equipped with a proven upper bound on full-model curvature, produces smoother activations while preserving accuracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

KAN: Kolmogorov–arnold networks,

Z. Liu et al., “KAN: Kolmogorov–arnold networks,” inThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

work page 2025
[2]

On the expressiveness and spectral bias of KANs,

Y . Wang, J. W. Siegel, Z. Liu, and T. Y . Hou, “On the expressiveness and spectral bias of KANs,” inThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

work page 2025
[3]

A practitioner’s guide to Kolmogorov-Arnold networks,

A. Noorizadegan, S. Wang, L. Ling, and J. P. Dominguez-Morales, “A practitioner’s guide to Kolmogorov-Arnold networks,”arXiv pre-print, 2025

work page 2025
[4]

Predictive modeling of flexible EHD pumps using Kolmogorov–Arnold networks,

Y . Peng et al., “Predictive modeling of flexible EHD pumps using Kolmogorov–Arnold networks,”Biomim. Intell. Robot., vol. 4, no. 4, p. 100184, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

CKAN: Convo- lutional Kolmogorov–Arnold networks model for intrusion detection in IoT environment,

M. Abd Elaziz, I. Ahmed Fares, and A. O. Aseeri, “CKAN: Convo- lutional Kolmogorov–Arnold networks model for intrusion detection in IoT environment,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 134 837–134 851, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Ex- plainable fault classification and severity diagnosis in rotating machinery using Kolmogorov–Arnold networks,

S. Rigas, M. Papachristou, I. Sotiropoulos, and G. Alexandridis, “Ex- plainable fault classification and severity diagnosis in rotating machinery using Kolmogorov–Arnold networks,”Entropy, vol. 27, no. 4, 2025

work page 2025
[7]

An intrusion detection model based on convolutional Kolmogorov-Arnold networks,

Z. W. et al., “An intrusion detection model based on convolutional Kolmogorov-Arnold networks,”Sci. Rep., vol. 15, p. 1917, 2025

work page 1917
[8]

Comparison of Kolmogorov–Arnold networks and multi-layer perceptron for modelling and optimisation analysis of energy systems,

T. Ansar and W. M. Ashraf, “Comparison of Kolmogorov–Arnold networks and multi-layer perceptron for modelling and optimisation analysis of energy systems,”Energy AI, vol. 20, p. 100473, 2025

work page 2025
[9]

Kolmogorov- Arnold networks meet science,

Z. Liu, M. Tegmark, P. Ma, W. Matusik, and Y . Wang, “Kolmogorov- Arnold networks meet science,”Phys. Rev. X, vol. 15, p. 041051, 2025

work page 2025
[10]

A comprehensive and FAIR comparison between MLP and KAN represen- tations for differential equations and operator networks,

K. Shukla, J. D. Toscano, Z. Wang, Z. Zou, and G. E. Karniadakis, “A comprehensive and FAIR comparison between MLP and KAN represen- tations for differential equations and operator networks,”Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 431, p. 117290, 2024

work page 2024
[11]

Adaptive training of grid-dependent physics-informed Kolmogorov-Arnold networks,

S. Rigas, M. Papachristou, T. Papadopoulos, F. Anagnostopoulos, and G. Alexandridis, “Adaptive training of grid-dependent physics-informed Kolmogorov-Arnold networks,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 176 982– 176 998, 2024

work page 2024
[12]

Kolmogorov–Arnold-informed neural network: A physics-informed deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems based on Kolmogorov–Arnold networks,

Y . Wang et al., “Kolmogorov–Arnold-informed neural network: A physics-informed deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems based on Kolmogorov–Arnold networks,”Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 433, p. 117518, 2025

work page 2025
[13]

Training deep physics-informed Kolmogorov-Arnold networks,

S. Rigas, F. Anagnostopoulos, M. Papachristou, and G. Alexandridis, “Training deep physics-informed Kolmogorov-Arnold networks,”Com- put. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 452, p. 118761, 2025

work page 2025
[14]

Solving the cosmological Vlasov–Poisson equations with physics-informed Kolmogorov–Arnold networks,

N. Cerardi, E. Tolley, and A. Mishra, “Solving the cosmological Vlasov–Poisson equations with physics-informed Kolmogorov–Arnold networks,”Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., vol. 545, no. 4, p. staf2241, 2025

work page 2025
[15]

DeepOKAN: Deep operator network based on Kolmogorov Arnold networks for mechanics problems,

D. W. Abueidda, P. Pantidis, and M. E. Mobasher, “DeepOKAN: Deep operator network based on Kolmogorov Arnold networks for mechanics problems,”Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 436, p. 117699, 2025

work page 2025
[16]

KANO: Kolmogorov-Arnold neural operator,

J. Lee, Z. Liu, X. Yu, Y . Wang, H. Jeong, M. Y . Niu, and Z. Zhang, “KANO: Kolmogorov-Arnold neural operator,” inThe F ourteenth Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

work page 2026
[17]

KAN-ODEs: Kolmogorov–Arnold network ordinary differential equations for learning dynamical systems and hidden physics,

B. C. Koenig, S. Kim, and S. Deng, “KAN-ODEs: Kolmogorov–Arnold network ordinary differential equations for learning dynamical systems and hidden physics,”Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 432, p. 117397, 2024

work page 2024
[18]

Kolmogorov–Arnold PointNet: Deep learning for prediction of fluid fields on irregular geometries,

A. Kashefi, “Kolmogorov–Arnold PointNet: Deep learning for prediction of fluid fields on irregular geometries,”Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 439, p. 117888, 2025

work page 2025
[19]

Data-driven model discovery with Kolmogorov-Arnold networks,

S. Panahi, M. Moradi, E. M. Bollt, and Y .-C. Lai, “Data-driven model discovery with Kolmogorov-Arnold networks,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 7, p. 023037, 2025

work page 2025
[20]

Kolmogorov–Arnold network for hyperspectral change detection,

S. Teymoor Seydi, M. Sadegh, and J. Chanussot, “Kolmogorov–Arnold network for hyperspectral change detection,”IEEE Trans. Geosci. Re- mote Sens., vol. 63, pp. 1–15, 2025

work page 2025
[21]

Higher-order-ReLU-KANs (HRKANs) for solving physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) more accurately, robustly and faster,

C. C. So and S. P. Yung, “Higher-order-ReLU-KANs (HRKANs) for solving physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) more accurately, robustly and faster,” in2025 IEEE World AI IoT Congress (AIIoT), 2025, pp. 1035–1042

work page 2025
[22]

From PINNs to PIKANs: recent advances in physics-informed machine learning,

J. D. Toscano et al., “From PINNs to PIKANs: recent advances in physics-informed machine learning,”Mach. Learn. Comput. Sci. Eng, vol. 1, p. 15, 2025

work page 2025
[23]

Automatic grid updates for Kolmogorov- Arnold networks using layer histograms,

J. Moody and J. Usevitch, “Automatic grid updates for Kolmogorov- Arnold networks using layer histograms,”arXiv pre-print, 2025

work page 2025
[24]

De Boor,A practical guide to splines

C. De Boor,A practical guide to splines. Springer New York, 1978

work page 1978
[25]

AI Feynman: A physics-inspired method for symbolic regression,

S.-M. Udrescu and M. Tegmark, “AI Feynman: A physics-inspired method for symbolic regression,”Sci. Adv., vol. 6, no. 16, p. eaay2631, 2020

work page 2020
[26]

Initialization schemes for Kolmogorov-Arnold networks: An empirical study,

S. Rigas, D. Verma, G. Alexandridis, and Y . Wang, “Initialization schemes for Kolmogorov-Arnold networks: An empirical study,” inThe F ourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

work page 2026
[27]

JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,

J. Bradbury et al., “JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,” 2018

work page 2018
[28]

Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,

M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,”J. Comput. Phys., vol. 378, pp. 686–707, 2019

work page 2019
[29]

Individual comparisons by ranking methods,

F. Wilcoxon, “Individual comparisons by ranking methods,”Biometrics Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 80–83, 1945

work page 1945
[30]

jaxKAN: A unified JAX framework for Kolmogorov-Arnold networks,

S. Rigas and M. Papachristou, “jaxKAN: A unified JAX framework for Kolmogorov-Arnold networks,”Journal of Open Source Software, vol. 10, no. 108, p. 7830, 2025

work page 2025