A unified Big-O complexity analysis of convolutional and transformer architectures in deep learning


Abstract

Deep learning has emerged as a central paradigm in modern computing, where both convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and Transformer architectures dominate vision, language, and multimodal applications. While accuracy remains a critical benchmark, the mathematical characterization of computational efficiency is equally essential for sustainable deployment. This study develops a unified Big-O framework that formalizes the asymptotic time and memory complexity of CNN and Transformer components. The analysis rigorously distinguishes between forward and backward propagation, parameter versus activation storage, and the scaling behavior induced by convolutional operations compared with self-attention mechanisms. Empirical measurements are then aligned with the theoretical derivations through regression-based scaling laws, confirming that CNNs exhibit near-linear growth with input resolution, whereas self-attention layers follow quadratic dependence on sequence length. Efficient variants such as depthwise separable convolutions reduce constant factors without altering asymptotic order, while hierarchical and approximate attention mechanisms mitigate but do not eliminate quadratic growth. By integrating mathematical derivation with computational validation, this work provides a principled reference for comparing architectures, clarifying the interplay between asymptotic theory and observed scaling. The unified perspective contributes to both computer science and applied mathematics by situating complexity analysis at the core of model evaluation, offering guidance for the design of efficient deep learning systems.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].