about
Training Neural Networks is ER-complete (arxiv.org)
2 points by sischoel on Feb 24, 2021 | hide | past | pdf | discuss on HN

In plain words: Deciding whether a network's weights can push its error below a threshold is exactly as hard as solving polynomial equations with real numbers. It is likely harder than any problem whose answer can be quickly checked, explaining why standard puzzle-solving tricks fail at training.

Abstract · Training Neural Networks is $\exists\mathbb R$-complete

Given a neural network, training data, and a threshold, it was known that it is NP-hard to find weights for the neural network such that the total error is below the threshold. We determine the algorithmic complexity of this fundamental problem precisely, by showing that it is $\exists\mathbb R$-complete. This means that the problem is equivalent, up to polynomial-time reductions, to deciding whether a system of polynomial equations and inequalities with integer coefficients and real unknowns has a solution. If, as widely expected, $\exists\mathbb R$ is strictly larger than NP, our work implies that the problem of training neural networks is not even in NP. Neural networks are usually trained using some variation of backpropagation. The result of this paper offers an explanation why techniques commonly used to solve big instances of NP-complete problems seem not to be of use for this task. Examples of such techniques are SAT solvers, IP solvers, local search, dynamic programming, to name a few general ones.

Mikkel Abrahamsen, Linda Kleist, Tillmann Miltzow
arXiv:2102.09798 · cs.CC, cs.AI, cs.DS, cs.LG, cs.NE · submitted Feb 19, 2021 · updated Nov 19, 2021
abstract · pdf · html · 12 pages, 4 figures, accepted at NeurIPS 2021

add comment on HN