Unverified 2026

Learning-Coefficient Architecture Selection

Implementation & benchmark of arXiv:2609.01666 — Solomonoff Induction and Singular Integrals

Usefulness6/10
Difficulty7/10
Novelty6/10

Source paper: Solomonoff Induction and Singular Integrals arXiv:2609.01666 · analyzed Sep 3, 2026

AI-generated research hypothesis, automatically tested. Not peer-reviewed.

Idea description

Replace parameter-count or validation-loss-only model selection with a singular-complexity score based on the evidence scaling of each candidate neural network. Select or prune architectures using \(n\widehat L_n+\widehat\lambda\log n-(\widehat m-1)\log\log n\), which can prefer overparameterized but highly redundant networks when their effective singular complexity is lower.

Formulas

$$Z_n=\int p(X^n\mid w)\,\varphi(w)\,dw=\int \exp\{-nL_n(w)\}\,\varphi(w)\,dw,$$
$$-\log Z_n=nL_n(w_0)+\lambda\log n-(m-1)\log\log n+O_{\mathbb P}(1),$$
$$-\log M(X^n)\ \leq\ nL_n(w_0)+\lambda\log n-(m-1)\log\log n+O_{\mathbb P}(1),$$
$$\operatorname{Score}(\mathcal A;n)=n\widehat L_n(\mathcal A)+\widehat\lambda_{\mathcal A}\log n-(\widehat m_{\mathcal A}-1)\log\log n.$$

Mathematical statement

For a Bayesian model with parameter \(w\), prior density \(\varphi(w)\), data \(X^n=(X_1,\ldots,X_n)\), likelihood \(p(X^n\mid w)\), and empirical loss \(L_n(w)=-n^{-1}\log p(X^n\mid w)\), the evidence is \(Z_n=\int p(X^n\mid w)\varphi(w)\,dw=\int e^{-nL_n(w)}\varphi(w)\,dw\). The paper's Solomonoff/evidence construction implies that a universal semimeasure can match this evidence within a multiplicative constant, so code lengths differ by only \(O(1)\). Under Watanabe-style singular-learning assumptions, if \(w_0\) minimizes the population loss, the free-energy asymptotic is \(-\log Z_n=nL_n(w_0)+\lambda\log n-(m-1)\log\log n+O_{\mathbb P}(1)\), and the paper states the corresponding universal-code upper bound \(-\log M(X^n)\le nL_n(w_0)+\lambda\log n-(m-1)\log\log n+O_{\mathbb P}(1)\). Here \(\lambda\ge 0\) is the learning coefficient measuring local singular complexity around the neural model's optimum, and \(m\in\mathbb N\) is its multiplicity. We estimate \(\lambda\) and \(m\) from evidence values at several dataset sizes and use the resulting asymptotic score for architecture selection.

Implementation notes

(1) Integration point: apply this after training several candidate architectures, or periodically during neural architecture search. Candidates can be Transformer widths, low-rank attention ranks, MLP expansion ratios, MoE expert counts, or structured-pruning masks. Replace the usual selection criterion of validation loss plus parameter-count penalty with the evidence-based score. (2) For each architecture \(\mathcal A\), choose a prior \(p_{\mathcal A}(\theta)\), train an ensemble of \(S\) posterior approximations \(q_{\mathcal A}(\theta)\) using independent fine-tuning runs, SWAG, or a diagonal Gaussian around trained weights. For dataset prefixes of sizes \(n_j\), estimate evidence with self-normalized importance sampling: \(\log\widehat Z_{\mathcal A}(n_j)=\log[(1/S)\sum_s\exp(\log p_{\mathcal A}(X^{n_j}\mid\theta_s)+\log p_{\mathcal A}(\theta_s)-\log q_{\mathcal A}(\theta_s))]\). Fit \(y_j=-\log\widehat Z_{\mathcal A}(n_j)-n_j\widehat L_{\mathcal A}(n_j)=a+\widehat\lambda_{\mathcal A}\log n_j+b\log\log n_j\), with \(b=-(\widehat m_{\mathcal A}-1)\), constraining \(\widehat\lambda\geq0\) and \(\widehat m\geq1\), or use a one-parameter slope if the fit is noisy. Compute the displayed score and select the lowest value. (3) Quantities computed from the paper's mathematics are the evidence integral and its \(\log n\), \(\log\log n\) asymptotic terms. Quantities estimated empirically are the posterior approximation, finite-sample evidence, optimum loss, and regression uncertainty; use bootstrap resampling over posterior particles and data prefixes for confidence intervals. Reject the correction if the fitted slope has poor fit or large uncertainty. (4) First experiment: train 4-layer and 8-layer small Transformers with widths 128, 256, and 512, plus LoRA rank variants, on WikiText-2. Compare validation-NLL selection, parameter-count BIC/MDL, and the proposed score using 4--6 prefix sizes and 32--128 posterior particles. Measure test NLL, parameter count, and inference memory. Success means selecting a model with lower test NLL than parameter-count BIC at equal or lower memory, or identifying a wider redundant model with improved test NLL despite similar or smaller estimated \(\widehat\lambda\).

Verification

This idea has not been verified yet.

Verification happens in two stages: Stage 1 — a mechanism check on a toy system confirms the claimed mathematical phenomenon reproduces; Stage 2 — a benchmark implements the idea on a real (small) neural network task and compares it against a tuned baseline over 8 paired seeds with a permutation test.

Artifacts

Artifacts unavailable.