Neural Weight Norm = Kolmogorov Complexity
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Why does weight decay work? We prove that, in any fixed-precision regime, the smallest weight norm of a looped neural network outputting a binary string equals the Kolmogorov complexity of that string, up to a logarithmic factor. This implies that weight decay induces a prior matching Solomonoff's universal prior, the optimal prior over computable functions, up to a polynomial factor. The result is norm-agnostic: in fixed precision, every weight norm collapses to the non-zero parameter count up to constants, so the same sandwich bound holds for any norm used as a regulariser. The proof has two short reductions: any program for a universal Turing machine can be encoded into neural weights at unit cost per program bit, and any fixed-precision network can be described by enumerating its non-zero parameters with logarithmic addressing overhead. Both bounds are tight up to constants, with the logarithmic factor realised by permutation encodings: a network whose parameters encode a permutation produces a string whose Kolmogorov complexity is the non-zero parameter count times its logarithm. The fixed-precision assumption is essential: with infinite precision, neural networks can encode non-computable functions and the weight norm loses its relevance.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 May 2026.
Builds on
19 of 38 references.
References · 19
- 2015Deep Compression: Compressing Deep Neural Networks with Pruning, Trained Quantization and Huffman Codingcited by 2,329
- 2018The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networkscited by 2,262
- 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,674
- 2021Sparsity in Deep Learning: Pruning and growth for efficient inference and training in neural networkscited by 527
- 2016Quantized Neural Networks: Training Neural Networks with Low Precision Weights and Activationscited by 426
- 2018Stronger generalization bounds for deep nets via a compression approachcited by 307
- 2017Variational Dropout Sparsifies Deep Neural Networkscited by 265
- 2023Looped Transformers as Programmable Computerscited by 237
- 2019Uniform convergence may be unable to explain generalization in deep learningcited by 224
- 2019On the Turing Completeness of Modern Neural Network Architecturescited by 129
- 2020On the Computational Power of Transformers and its Implications in Sequence Modelingcited by 85
- 2022PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain Generalizationcited by 76
7 more
- 2023Why Do We Need Weight Decay in Modern Deep Learning?cited by 72
- 2024Learning Universal Predictorscited by 31
- 2023How Powerful are Decoder-Only Transformer Neural Models?cited by 20
- 2025Constant Bit-size Transformers Are Turing Completecited by 19
- 2025Bridging Kolmogorov Complexity and Deep Learning: Asymptotically Optimal Description Length Objectives for Transformerscited by 6
- 2025Deep Learning as a Convex Paradigm of Computation: Minimizing Circuit Size with ResNetscited by 5
- 2025Efficient Turing Machine Simulation with Transformerscited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.