Hardness of Learning Fixed Parities with Neural Networks

Itamar Shoshani, Ohad Shamir
1/1/2025
cs.LGstat.ML

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Learning parity functions is a canonical problem in learning theory, which although computationally tractable, is not amenable to standard learning algorithms such as gradient-based methods. This hardness is usually explained via statistical query lower bounds [Kearns, 1998]. However, these bounds only imply that for any given algorithm, there is some worst-case parity function that will be hard to learn. Thus, they do not explain why fixed parities - say, the full parity function over all coordinates - are difficult to learn in practice, at least with standard predictors and gradient-based methods [Abbe and Boix-Adsera, 2022]. In this paper, we address this open problem, by showing that for any fixed parity of some minimal size, using it as a target function to train one-hidden-layer ReLU networks with perturbed gradient descent will fail to produce anything meaningful. To establish this, we prove a new result about the decay of the Fourier coefficients of linear threshold (or weighted majority) functions, which may be of independent interest.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Cite this paper

@article{shoshani2025hardness,
  title  = {Hardness of Learning Fixed Parities with Neural Networks},
  author = {Itamar Shoshani and Ohad Shamir},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2501.00817},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00817v2}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2501.00817.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2501.00817)

Discussion