about
NNs are in fact essentially polynomial regression models (arxiv.org)
1 point by SiempreViernes on Sep 17, 2019 | hide | past | pdf | discuss on HN

In plain words: Neural networks are essentially polynomial regression in disguise, fitting curves by multiplying input features together, which explains their quirks. In tests, the plain polynomial version matched or beat neural nets while needing fewer tuning choices and avoiding training failures.

Abstract · Polynomial Regression As an Alternative to Neural Nets

Despite the success of neural networks (NNs), there is still a concern among many over their "black box" nature. Why do they work? Here we present a simple analytic argument that NNs are in fact essentially polynomial regression models. This view will have various implications for NNs, e.g. providing an explanation for why convergence problems arise in NNs, and it gives rough guidance on avoiding overfitting. In addition, we use this phenomenon to predict and confirm a multicollinearity property of NNs not previously reported in the literature. Most importantly, given this loose correspondence, one may choose to routinely use polynomial models instead of NNs, thus avoiding some major problems of the latter, such as having to set many tuning parameters and dealing with convergence issues. We present a number of empirical results; in each case, the accuracy of the polynomial approach matches or exceeds that of NN approaches. A many-featured, open-source software package, polyreg, is available.

Xi Cheng, Bohdan Khomtchouk, Norman Matloff, Pete Mohanty
arXiv:1806.06850 · cs.LG, stat.ML · submitted Jun 13, 2018 · updated Apr 10, 2019
abstract · pdf · html · 23 pages, 1 figure, 13 tables

add comment on HN
Also discussed: Jun 2018 (137 points, 46 comments) · Jun 2018 (4 points, 0 comments)