arXiv — Machine Learning · · 4 min read

Targeted search shows that random-device testing underestimates worst-case error in a simulated wave-based neural operator

Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Machine Learning

arXiv:2610.07529 (cs)
[Submitted on 5 Oct 2026]

Title:Targeted search shows that random-device testing underestimates worst-case error in a simulated wave-based neural operator

View a PDF of the paper titled Targeted search shows that random-device testing underestimates worst-case error in a simulated wave-based neural operator, by Samrendra Roy and 3 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
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.
Comments: 50 pages (19 main text and references, 31 Supplementary Information), 5 figures, 1 table
Subjects: Machine Learning (cs.LG); Emerging Technologies (cs.ET); Optics (physics.optics)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.07529 [cs.LG]
  (or arXiv:2610.07529v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.07529
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Samrendra Roy [view email]
[v1] Mon, 5 Oct 2026 23:53:31 UTC (2,030 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Targeted search shows that random-device testing underestimates worst-case error in a simulated wave-based neural operator, by Samrendra Roy and 3 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Additional Features

Current browse context:

cs.LG
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
IArxiv recommender toggle
IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

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.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — Machine Learning