An established measure of the expressive power of a given ReLU neural network is the number of linear regions into which it partitions the input space. There exist many different, non-equivalent definitions of what a linear region actually is. We systematically assess which papers use which definitions and discuss how they relate to each other. We then analyze the computational complexity of counting the number of such regions for the various definitions. Generally, this turns out to be an intractable problem. We prove NPand #P-hardness results already for networks with one hidden layer and strong hardness of approximation results for two or more hidden layers. Finally, on the algorithmic side, we demonstrate that counting linear regions can at least be achieved in polynomial space for some common definitions.

Proportional fairness criteria inspired by democratic ideals of proportional representation have received growing attention in the clustering literature. Prior work has investigated them in two separate paradigms. Chen et al. [1] study centroid clustering, in which each data point's loss is determined by its distance to a representative point (centroid) chosen in its cluster. Caragiannis et al. [2] study non-centroid clustering, in which each data point's loss is determined by its maximum distance to any other data point in its cluster. We generalize both paradigms to introduce semi-centroid clustering, in which each data point's loss is a combination of its centroid and non-centroid losses, and study two proportional fairness criteria--the core, and its relaxation, fully justified representation (FJR). Our main result is a novel algorithm which achieves a constant approximation to the core, in polynomial time, even when the distance metrics used for centroid and non-centroid loss measurements are different. We also derive improved results for more restricted loss functions and the weaker FJR criterion, and establish lower bounds in each case.

Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) are commonly considered interpretable within the ML community, as their structure makes the relationship between inputs and outputs relatively understandable. Therefore, it may seem natural to hypothesize that obtaining meaningful explanations for GAMs could be performed efficiently and would not be computationally infeasible. In this work, we challenge this hypothesis by analyzing the computational complexity of generating different explanations for various forms of GAMs across multiple contexts. Our analysis reveals a surprisingly diverse landscape of both positive and negative complexity outcomes. Particularly, under standard complexity assumptions such as P =NP, we establish several key findings: (i) in stark contrast to many other common ML models, the complexity of generating explanations for GAMs is heavily influenced by the structure of the input space; (ii) the complexity of explaining GAMs varies significantly with the types of component models used -- but interestingly, these differences only emerge under specific input domain settings; (iii) significant complexity distinctions appear for obtaining explanations in regression tasks versus classification tasks in GAMs; and (iv) expressing complex models like neural networks additively (e.g., as neural additive models) can make them easier to explain, though interestingly, this benefit appears only for certain explanation methods and input domains. Collectively, these results shed light on the feasibility of computing diverse explanations for GAMs, offering a rigorous theoretical picture of the conditions under which such computations are possible or provably hard.

Concavity and its refinements underpin tractability in multiplayer games, where players independently choose actions to maximize their own payoffs which depend on other players' actions. In games, where players' strategy sets are compact and convex, and their payoffs are concave in their own actions, strong guarantees follow: Nash equilibria always exist and decentralized algorithms converge to equilibria. If the game is furthermore, an even stronger guarantee holds: Nash equilibria are unique under strictness assumptions. Unfortunately, we show that concavity or monotonicity is NP-hard, already for games where utilities are multivariate polynomials and compact, convex basic semialgebraic strategy sets--an expressive class that captures extensive-form games with imperfect recall. On the positive side, we develop two hierarchies of sum-of-squares programs that certify concavity and monotonicity of a given game, and each level of the hierarchies can be solved in polynomial time. We show that almost all concave/monotone games are certified at some finite level of the hierarchies. Subsequently, we introduce the classes of SOS-concave/monotone games, which globally approximate concave/monotone games, and show that for any given game we can compute the closest SOS-concave/monotone game in polynomial time. Finally, we apply our techniques to canonical examples of extensive-form games with imperfect recall.

We first address questions that might arise in response to the main text. That is, if Alice chooses a SOAP, PO, or TO for Bob to learn to solve, when can Alice determine Bob has solved the task? A: Bob can be said to be doing better on a given task if his behavior improves, as is typical in evaluating behavior under reward. The difference with SOAPs, POs, and TOs is that we measure improvement relative to the task rather than reward. For instance, given a SOAP, we might say that Bob has solved the task once he has found one of the good policies, and we might measure Bob's progress on a task in terms of the distance of his greedy policy to one of the good policies (as done in our learning experiments). The same reasoning applies to POs and TOs: Bob is doing better on a task in so far as his greedy policy (or trajectories) is (are) higher up the ordering. That is, the studied reward functions must be a function of s, (s,a), or (s,a,s0). A: Indeed, as discussed in our introduction, our goal is to examine the expressivity of Markov rewards in the context of finite MDPs.

We study stochastic convex optimization (SCO) with heavy-tailed gradients under pure epsilon-differential privacy (DP). Instead of assuming a bound on the worst-case Lipschitz parameter of the loss, we assume only a bounded k-th moment. This assumption allows for unbounded, heavy-tailed stochastic gradient distributions, and can yield sharper excess risk bounds. The minimax optimal rate for approximate (epsilon, delta)-DP SCO is known in this setting, but the pure epsilon-DP case has remained open. We characterize the minimax optimal excess-risk rate for pure epsilon-DP heavy-tailed SCO up to logarithmic factors. Our algorithm achieves this rate in polynomial time with high probability. Moreover, it runs in polynomial time with probability 1 when the worst-case Lipschitz parameter is polynomially bounded. For important structured problem classes - including hinge/ReLU-type and absolute-value losses on Euclidean balls, ellipsoids, and polytopes - we achieve the same excess-risk guarantee in polynomial time with probability 1 even when the worst-case Lipschitz parameter is infinite. Our approach is based on a novel framework for privately optimizing Lipschitz extensions of the empirical loss. We complement our excess risk upper bound with a novel high probability lower bound.

We show that the standard stochastic gradient decent (SGD) algorithm is guaranteed to learn, in polynomial time, a function that is competitive with the best function in the conjugate kernel space of the network, as defined in Daniely, Frostig and Singer. The result holds for log-depth networks from a rich family of architectures. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first polynomial-time guarantee for the standard neural network learning algorithm for networks of depth more that two. As corollaries, it follows that for neural networks of any depth between 2 and log(n), SGD is guaranteed to learn, in polynomial time, constant degree polynomials with polynomially bounded coefficients. Likewise, it follows that SGD on large enough networks can learn any continuous function (not in polynomial time), complementing classical expressivity results.

We study dual volume sampling, a method for selecting k columns from an n*m short and wide matrix (n <= k <= m) such that the probability of selection is proportional to the volume spanned by the rows of the induced submatrix. This method was proposed by Avron and Boutsidis (2013), who showed it to be a promising method for column subset selection and its multiple applications. However, its wider adoption has been hampered by the lack of polynomial time sampling algorithms. We remove this hindrance by developing an exact (randomized) polynomial time sampling algorithm as well as its derandomization. Thereafter, we study dual volume sampling via the theory of real stable polynomials and prove that its distribution satisfies the "Strong Rayleigh" property. This result has numerous consequences, including a provably fast-mixing Markov chain sampler that makes dual volume sampling much more attractive to practitioners. This sampler is closely related to classical algorithms for popular experimental design methods that are to date lacking theoretical analysis but are known to empirically work well.