Complexity of Injectivity and Verification of ReLU Neural Networks
Vincent Froese, Moritz Grillo, Martin Skutella

TL;DR
This paper investigates the computational complexity of injectivity and verification problems in ReLU neural networks, establishing coNP-completeness results and exploring tractability in specific cases, with implications for safety-critical applications.
Contribution
It proves the coNP-completeness of injectivity decision and network verification problems, and introduces fixed-parameter algorithms for small input dimensions, advancing understanding of neural network interpretability and verification.
Findings
Injectivity decision is coNP-complete.
Network verification is coNP-hard for general input domains.
Surjectivity relates to zonotope containment and is characterized for 1D outputs.
Abstract
Neural networks with ReLU activation play a key role in modern machine learning. Understanding the functions represented by ReLU networks is a major topic in current research as this enables a better interpretability of learning processes. Injectivity of a function computed by a ReLU network, that is, the question if different inputs to the network always lead to different outputs, plays a crucial role whenever invertibility of the function is required, such as, e.g., for inverse problems or generative models. The exact computational complexity of deciding injectivity was recently posed as an open problem (Puthawala et al. [JMLR 2022]). We answer this question by proving coNP-completeness. On the positive side, we show that the problem for a single ReLU-layer is still tractable for small input dimension; more precisely, we present a parameterized algorithm which yields fixed-parameter…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
This paper makes a valuable contribution to the theoretical understanding of ReLU neural networks, particularly concerning injectivity, verification, and surjectivity, by rigorously analyzing these problems’ computational complexity. Below is an assessment based on originality, quality, clarity, and significance. **1. Originality**: The paper tackles the novel and previously open question of the computational complexity of determining injectivity in ReLU networks, establishing its coNP-complete
This paper makes a significant theoretical contribution to the study of ReLU networks, but there are several areas where it could be further improved to enhance both its rigor and accessibility. Here are some specific areas for improvement: **1. Limited Empirical Validation**: While the paper focuses on theoretical complexity results, an empirical component could improve its practical relevance. Implementing and testing the parameterized algorithm for injectivity on networks with small input di
The paper provides some answers to deep theoretical questions surrounding the complexity of certain decision problems in the analysis of ReLU neural networks. The results in this paper are certainly of interest to the ICLR community. Interesting open problems are posed to the community, in the conclusion of the paper.
I question the accessibility of this paper to the general ICLR audience. There is a lot of technical terminology used that is not defined for the general reader. The results in the main paper are all substantiated by rather imprecise proof sketches, rather than rigorous proofs. See also my Questions below.
The complexity of network analysis is an important area of research. In general, universal approximation and robustness are important results and an important theoretical justification in the field. The writing and presentation is mostly clear. While many results, especially in the beginning where attributed to prior works, later results appear mostly novel. Further, intuition was provided throughout the paper.
*A substantive assessment of the weaknesses of the paper. Focus on constructive and actionable insights on how the work could improve towards its stated goals. Be specific, avoid generic remarks. For example, if you believe the contribution lacks novelty, provide references and an explanation as evidence; if you believe experiments are insufficient, explain why and exactly what is missing, etc.* Regarding the presentation, i encourage the authors to lighten the paper with some illustrations whe
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNeural Networks and Applications
