The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Hardness Results for Agnostically Learning Low-Degree Polynomial Threshold Functions
Abstract
Hardness results for maximum agreement problems have close connections to hardness results for proper learning in computational learning theory. In this paper we prove two hardness results for the problem of fnding a low degree polynomial threshold function (PTF) which has the maximum possible agreement with a given set of labeled examples in ℝn × {– 1, 1}. We prove that for any constants d ≥ 1, ∊ > 0, Assuming the Unique Games Conjecture, no polynomial-time algorithm can fnd a degree-d PTF that is consistent with a (1/2 + ∊) fraction of a given set of labeled examples in ℝn × {–1, 1}, even if there exists a degree-d PTF that is consistent with a 1 − ∊ fraction of the examples. It is NP-hard to fnd a degree-2 PTF that is consistent with a (1/2 + ∊) fraction of a given set of labeled examples in ℝn × {– 1, 1}, even if there exists a half-space (degree-1 PTF) that is consistent with a 1 − ∊ fraction of the examples. These results immediately imply the following hardness of learning results: (i) Assuming the Unique Games Conjecture, there is no better-than-trivial proper learning algorithm that agnostically learns degree-d PTFs under arbitrary distributions; (ii) There is no better-than-trivial learning algorithm that outputs degree-2 PTFs and agnostically learns halfspaces (i.e. degree-1 PTFs) under arbitrary distributions.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Theorem 3.6. Under standard complexity-theoretic intractability assumptions, for G the classes of conjunctions of boolean attributes, linear threshold functions, or bounded-degree polynomial threshold functions, there exist distributions P such that the auditing problem cannot be solved in polynomial time, for either statistical parity or false positive fairness.”
From Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness (2017) · cites this paper as Diakonikolas et al. [2011]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness
Kearns, M., Neel, S., Roth, A., & Wu, Z. S. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.05144 · Cited by 469
Metadata
- Authors
- Diakonikolas, I., O'Donnell, R., Servedio, R. A., & Wu, Y.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms
- Published
- 2011-01-23
- Pages
- 1590-1606
- OpenAlex
- W2950508876
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 0.25
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
- Keywords
- polynomial threshold functions, agnostic learning, computational hardness, proper learning, Unique Games Conjecture, half-space, NP-hardness, computational learning theory
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review