← Back to context

Comment by appplication

11 hours ago

Not a mathematician so I’m immediately out of my depth here (and butchering terminology), but it seems, intuitively, like the presence of a massive amount of local minima wouldn’t really be relevant for gradient descent. A given local minimum would need to have a “well” at least be as large as your step size to reasonably capture your descent.

E.g. you could land perfectly on a local minima but you won’t stay the unless your step size was minute or the minima was quite substantial.

The randomness (and exploration) encouraged by batch training also helps avoid 'real' minima, if they exist.

I believe what was meant was that assuming local minima of a sufficient size to capture your probe, given a sufficiently high density of those, you become extremely likely to get stuck. A counterpoint regarding dimensionality is made by the comment adjacent to yours.