Cited by 6Machine Learning and AlgorithmsComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsNeural Networks and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Hardness Results for Agnostically Learning Low-Degree Polynomial Threshold Functions

Diakonikolas, Ilias, O'Donnell, Ryan, Servedio, Rocco A., Wu, Yi·2011·Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms

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

Crossref · 10.1137/1.9781611973082.123

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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