Papers › On the Approximation Properties of Random ReLU Features

On the Approximation Properties of Random ReLU Features

10 Oct 2018arXiv:1810.04374archive 2025-07-28

Yitong Sun, Anna Gilbert, Ambuj Tewari

We study the approximation properties of random ReLU features through their reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). We first prove a universality theorem for the RKHS induced by random features whose feature maps are of the form of nodes in neural networks. The universality result implies that the random ReLU features method is a universally consistent learning algorithm. We prove that despite the universality of the RKHS induced by the random ReLU features, composition of functions in it generates substantially more complicated functions that are harder to approximate than those functions simply in the RKHS. We also prove that such composite functions can be efficiently approximated by multi-layer ReLU networks with bounded weights. This depth separation result shows that the random ReLU features models suffer from the same weakness as that of shallow models. We show in experiments that the performance of random ReLU features is comparable to that of random Fourier features and, in general, has a lower computational cost. We also demonstrate that when the target function is the composite function as described in the depth separation theorem, 3-layer neural networks indeed outperform both random ReLU features and 2-layer neural networks.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

11 samples harvested; 2 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 9 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 11 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from syitong/randrelu. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections