# A Novel Explanation Against Linear Neural Networks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.00186 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.00186/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 1 of its 3 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Dec 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.01703/) (2019)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Linear Regression and neural networks are widely used to model data. Neural networks distinguish themselves from linear regression with their use of activation functions that enable modeling nonlinear functions. The standard argument for these activation functions is that without them, neural networks only can model a line. However, a novel explanation we propose in this paper for the impracticality of neural networks without activation functions, or linear neural networks, is that they actually reduce both training and testing performance. Having more parameters makes LNNs harder to optimize, and thus they require more training iterations than linear regression to even potentially converge to the optimal solution. We prove this hypothesis through an analysis of the optimization of an LNN and rigorous testing comparing the performance between both LNNs and linear regression on synthethic, noisy datasets.