Traditionally, most complex intelligence architectures are extremely non-convex, which could not be well performed by convex optimization. However, this paper decomposes complex structures into three types of nodes: operators, algorithms and functions. Further, iteratively propagating from node to node along edge, we prove that "regarding the neural graph without triangles, it is nearly convex in each variable, when the other variables are fixed." In fact, the non-convex properties stem from triangles and functions, which could be transformed to be convex with our proposed . In conclusion, we generally depict the landscape for the objective of neural graph and propose the methodology to convexify neural graph.
What follows extends some of our results of [1] on learning from examples in layered feed-forward networks of linear units. In particular we examine what happens when the ntunber of layers is large or when the connectivity between layers is local and investigate some of the properties of an autoassociative algorithm. Notation will be as in [1] where additional motivations and references can be found. It is usual to criticize linear networks because "linear functions do not compute" and because several layers can always be reduced to one by the proper multiplication of matrices. However this is not the point of view adopted here. It is assumed that the architecture of the network is given (and could perhaps depend on external constraints) and the purpose is to understand what happens during the learning phase, what strategies are adopted by a synaptic weights modifying algorithm, ... [see also (1988) for an example of an application and the work of Linsker (1988) on the emergence of feature detecting units in linear networks .  In this paper, we prove a conjecture published in 1989 and also partially address an open problem announced at the Conference on Learning Theory (COLT) 2015. For an expected loss function of a deep nonlinear neural network, we prove the following statements under the independence assumption adopted from recent work: 1) the function is non-convex and non-concave, 2) every local minimum is a global minimum, 3) every critical point that is not a global minimum is a saddle point, and 4) the property of saddle points differs for shallow networks (with three layers) and deeper networks (with more than three layers). Moreover, we prove that the same four statements hold for deep linear neural networks with any depth, any widths and no unrealistic assumptions. As a result, we present an instance, for which we can answer to the following question: how difficult to directly train a deep model in theory? It is more difficult than the classical machine learning models (because of the non-convexity), but not too difficult (because of the nonexistence of poor local minima and the property of the saddle points). We note that even though we have advanced the theoretical foundations of deep learning, there is still a gap between theory and practice. Deep learning has enjoyed a resurgence of interest in the last few years for such applications as image and speech recognition, or natural language processing. The vast majority of practical applications of deep learning focus on supervised learning, where the supervised loss function is minimized using stochastic gradient descent. The properties of this highly non-convex loss function, such as its landscape and the behavior of critical points (maxima, minima, and saddle points), as well as the reason why largeand small-size networks achieve radically different practical performance, are however very poorly understood. It was only recently shown that new results in spin-glass theory potentially may provide an explanation for these problems by establishing a connection between the loss function of the neural networks and the Hamiltonian of the spherical spin-glass models. The connection between both models relies on a number of possibly unrealistic assumptions, yet the empirical evidence suggests that the connection may exist in real. The question we pose is whether it is possible to drop some of these assumptions to establish a stronger connection between both models.