The curve-fitting problem revisited

IF 1.5 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE European Journal for Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2026-09-01 DOI:10.1007/s13194-026-00772-7
Oliver Buchholz
{"title":"The curve-fitting problem revisited","authors":"Oliver Buchholz","doi":"10.1007/s13194-026-00772-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The curve-fitting problem refers to the task of fitting a mathematical function to given observations. According to the standard analysis of the problem, this task involves a trade-off between simplicity and in-sample accuracy. Furthermore, when the goal is to use the fitted function for making predictions, simplicity and in-sample accuracy have to be balanced to avoid under- and overfitting and, thus, impeding the function’s predictive accuracy. This paper revisits the standard analysis of the curve-fitting problem in light of recent advances in statistics and machine learning. I show that applications of deep neural networks involve the curve-fitting problem for they are also concerned with fitting a mathematical function to given observations. Surprisingly, however, deep neural networks apparently undermine the standard analysis of the curve-fitting problem: they commonly exhibit high predictive accuracy without the need to actively balance simplicity and in-sample accuracy. I explore the implications of this phenomenon and argue that, nevertheless, the standard analysis of the curve-fitting problem can be saved under a suitable definition of simplicity. I also highlight how this renews the challenge to justify simplicity as a methodological norm in curve fitting.","PeriodicalId":48832,"journal":{"name":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-026-00772-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The curve-fitting problem refers to the task of fitting a mathematical function to given observations. According to the standard analysis of the problem, this task involves a trade-off between simplicity and in-sample accuracy. Furthermore, when the goal is to use the fitted function for making predictions, simplicity and in-sample accuracy have to be balanced to avoid under- and overfitting and, thus, impeding the function’s predictive accuracy. This paper revisits the standard analysis of the curve-fitting problem in light of recent advances in statistics and machine learning. I show that applications of deep neural networks involve the curve-fitting problem for they are also concerned with fitting a mathematical function to given observations. Surprisingly, however, deep neural networks apparently undermine the standard analysis of the curve-fitting problem: they commonly exhibit high predictive accuracy without the need to actively balance simplicity and in-sample accuracy. I explore the implications of this phenomenon and argue that, nevertheless, the standard analysis of the curve-fitting problem can be saved under a suitable definition of simplicity. I also highlight how this renews the challenge to justify simplicity as a methodological norm in curve fitting.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
曲线拟合问题再次出现
曲线拟合问题是指将一个数学函数拟合到给定的观测值的任务。根据对问题的标准分析,这项任务涉及到简单性和样本内准确性之间的权衡。此外,当目标是使用拟合函数进行预测时,必须平衡简单性和样本内精度,以避免欠拟合和过拟合,从而阻碍函数的预测精度。本文根据统计学和机器学习的最新进展,重新审视了曲线拟合问题的标准分析。我表明,深度神经网络的应用涉及曲线拟合问题,因为它们也涉及将数学函数拟合到给定的观测值。然而,令人惊讶的是,深度神经网络显然破坏了曲线拟合问题的标准分析:它们通常表现出很高的预测精度,而不需要主动平衡简单性和样本内精度。我探讨了这一现象的含义,并认为,尽管如此,曲线拟合问题的标准分析可以在适当的简单性定义下节省下来。我还强调了这是如何重新证明简单性作为曲线拟合方法规范的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
European Journal for Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The European Journal for Philosophy of Science publishes groundbreaking works that can deepen understanding of the concepts and methods of the sciences, as they explore increasingly many facets of the world we live in. It is of direct interest to philosophers of science coming from different perspectives, as well as scientists, citizens and policymakers. The journal is interested in articles from all traditions and all backgrounds, as long as they engage with the sciences in a constructive, and critical, way. The journal represents the various longstanding European philosophical traditions engaging with the sciences, but welcomes articles from every part of the world.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Scientific understanding and the controversy over adaptationism in evolutionary biology The limits of critical thinking: climate skepticism, epistemic trespassing, and the understanding that grounds trust Biological possibility: a mechanistic account Flat-footed functionalism in the face of T-duality Putnam on mathematics and ontological commitment
wanfang
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1