Can stable and accurate neural networks be computed? -- On the barriers
  of deep learning and Smale's 18th problem
  Deep learning (DL) has had unprecedented success and is now entering
scientific computing with full force. However, current DL methods typically
suffer from instability, even when universal approximation properties guarantee
the existence of stable neural networks (NNs). We address this paradox by
demonstrating basic well-conditioned problems in scientific computing where one
can prove the existence of NNs with great approximation qualities, however,
there does not exist any algorithm, even randomised, that can train (or
compute) such a NN. For any positive integers $K > 2$ and $L$, there are cases
where simultaneously: (a) no randomised training algorithm can compute a NN
correct to $K$ digits with probability greater than $1/2$, (b) there exists a
deterministic training algorithm that computes a NN with $K-1$ correct digits,
but any such (even randomised) algorithm needs arbitrarily many training data,
(c) there exists a deterministic training algorithm that computes a NN with
$K-2$ correct digits using no more than $L$ training samples. These results
imply a classification theory describing conditions under which (stable) NNs
with a given accuracy can be computed by an algorithm. We begin this theory by
establishing sufficient conditions for the existence of algorithms that compute
stable NNs in inverse problems. We introduce Fast Iterative REstarted NETworks
(FIRENETs), which we both prove and numerically verify are stable. Moreover, we
prove that only $\mathcal{O}(|\log(\epsilon)|)$ layers are needed for an
$\epsilon$-accurate solution to the inverse problem.
