The benefit in KANs is interpretability, not expressivity. It's a structure that lends itself well to performing symbolic regression or other interpretable downstream tasks. This can make it better suited for scientific tasks, for example. You can easily replicate the practical performance of any KAN with an MLP, and it will train and run faster on modern architectures. This proposes a method it might be faster, but it's early days to me.
Precision in the activation function is targetting a part of neural networks that you don't want. There are many other methods that work with high precision. You use neural networks because of their implicit bias toward regular solutions. That means there is a sweet spot at low precision that you're targetting.
A key benefit of KANs is expressivity, as each layer is significantly more expressive than an MLP layer. This can be seen in our benchmarks: KAN networks need fewer layers than MLPs to match or beat their performance, even in software.
However, on GPUs, KAN implementations are far less efficient than MLPs: since B-spline locality is hard to exploit and lookup operations aren't as efficient. This is your original point about MLPs training and running faster on modern architectures: each KAN layer is more expressive, but its poor hardware efficiency makes it a net negative (at least for current approaches).
On FPGAs, LUT lookups are cheap, so KANs' expressive layers map to very hardware-efficient implementations, and the resulting networks are thus much more compact and efficient than equivalent MLPs.
On your second point: low precision is certainly viable for both inference and learning (as shown in our work), and quantization can even have a mild regularizing effect. However, task performance generally worsens with lower precision (here and across the literature): the use of low precision is fundamentally a result of the efficiency-performance tradeoff.
I generally agree with this rebuttal. Each KAN layer is more expressive on a per-layer basis, although there is a mapping to an MLP with more layers. With the current hardware implementations, yes, MLPs have an advantage overall. I can certainly respect the intention to make KANs faster, since it is a serious issue for more widespread adoption, and KANs certainly have their value.
I'm still very skeptical of arguing for KANs as an eventual replacement, like I've seen some papers on the subject argue. The reduced depth may not be an advantage. For example, higher depth for standard neural networks doesn't just add to expressivity, it actually induces spectral sparsity bias. KANs have a bias of their own, but it is different, and is sometimes better, sometimes worse, depending on the task. If increasing depth turns out to be important, KANs might remain less efficient overall.
Ah I see, that's an interesting point about higher depth potentially having other benefits. For our work on smaller models (e.g. generally <5 layers), this might not have been as relevant but I would definitely be interested to see implications for much deeper networks. As to your point about KANs performing better or worse depending on the specific task, we definitely did notice this to some extent (symbolic tasks were the best, non-symbolic tasks such as image recognition were the worst).
>symbolic tasks were the best, non-symbolic tasks such as image recognition were the worst
I wonder how much of that is not so much the overall task but the need to build up to a complex state where KANs can excel. If you consider the classic neuralnet edge detector example, it's hard to imagine a KAN doing the task more efficiently, it seems like a necessary task as part of the overall process but delegating a more capable system to a menial task is probably wasting resources.
One layer of conv2d might be enough to turn pixels into something that KANs manage better.
This is definitely true: one could imagine a model with a mix of the two layers or a simple linear / MLP-like kernel doing "preprocessing" before KAN layers. Other work that explores task performances for KANs and MLPs generally finds KANs are worse at non-symbolic tasks, but it would be interesting to see if hybrid architectures could improve on this failure mode.
Precision in the activation function is targetting a part of neural networks that you don't want. There are many other methods that work with high precision. You use neural networks because of their implicit bias toward regular solutions. That means there is a sweet spot at low precision that you're targetting.