skip to main content

Search for: All records

Award ID contains: 1764032

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Free, publicly-accessible full text available January 1, 2023
  2. Free, publicly-accessible full text available January 1, 2023
  3. We study the relative power of learning with gradient descent on differentiable models, such as neural networks, versus using the corresponding tangent kernels. We show that under certain conditions, gradient descent achieves small error only if a related tangent kernel method achieves a non-trivial advantage over random guessing (a.k.a. weak learning), though this advantage might be very small even when gradient descent can achieve arbitrarily high accuracy. Complementing this, we show that without these conditions, gradient descent can in fact learn with small error even when no kernel method, in particular using the tangent kernel, can achieve a non-trivial advantage over random guessing.
  4. Recent work has highlighted the role of initialization scale in determining the structure of the solutions that gradient methods converge to. In particular, it was shown that large initialization leads to the neural tangent kernel regime solution, whereas small initialization leads to so called “rich regimes”. However, the initialization structure is richer than the overall scale alone and involves relative magnitudes of different weights and layers in the network. Here we show that these relative scales, which we refer to as initialization shape, play an important role in determining the learned model. We develop a novel technique for deriving the inductive bias of gradientflow and use it to obtain closed-form implicit regularizers for multiple cases of interest.
  5. We show that the Invariant Risk Minimization (IRM) formulation of Arjovsky et al. (2019) can fail to capture “natural” invariances, at least when used in its practical “linear” form, and even on very simple problems which directly follow the motivating examples for IRM. This can lead to worse generalization on new environments, even when compared to unconstrained ERM. The issue stems from a significant gap between the linear variant (as in their concrete method IRMv1) and the full non-linear IRM formulation. Additionally, even when capturing the “right” invariances, we show that it is possible for IRM to learn a sub-optimal predictor, due to the loss function not being invariant across environments. The issues arise even when measuring invariance on the population distributions, but are exacerbated by the fact that IRM is extremely fragile to sampling.
  6. We present a direct (primal only) derivation of Mirror Descent as a “partial” discretization of gradient flow on a Riemannian manifold where the metric tensor is the Hessian of the Mirror Descent potential function. We contrast this discretization to Natural Gradient Descent, which is obtained by a “full” forward Euler discretization. This view helps shed light on the relationship between the methods and allows generalizing Mirror Descent to any Riemannian geometry in Rd, even when the metric tensor is not a Hessian, and thus there is no “dual.”
  7. We provide a detailed asymptotic study of gradient flow trajectories and their implicit optimization bias when minimizing the exponential loss over "diagonal linear networks". This is the simplest model displaying a transition between "kernel" and non-kernel ("rich" or "active") regimes. We show how the transition is controlled by the relationship between the initialization scale and how accurately we minimize the training loss. Our results indicate that some limit behaviors of gradient descent only kick in at ridiculous training accuracies (well beyond 10−100). Moreover, the implicit bias at reasonable initialization scales and training accuracies is more complex and not captured by these limits.
  8. We present and study approximate notions of dimensional and margin complexity, which correspond to the minimal dimension or norm of an embedding required to {\em approximate}, rather then exactly represent, a given hypothesis class. We show that such notions are not only sufficient for learning using linear predictors or a kernel, but unlike the exact variants, are also necessary. Thus they are better suited for discussing limitations of linear or kernel methods.
  9. A recent line of work studies overparametrized neural networks in the “kernel regime,” i.e. when during training the network behaves as a kernelized linear predictor, and thus, training with gradient descent has the effect of finding the corresponding minimum RKHS norm solution. This stands in contrast to other studies which demonstrate how gradient descent on overparametrized networks can induce rich implicit biases that are not RKHS norms. Building on an observation by \citet{chizat2018note}, we show how the \textbf{\textit{scale of the initialization}} controls the transition between the “kernel” (aka lazy) and “rich” (aka active) regimes and affects generalization properties in multilayer homogeneous models. We provide a complete and detailed analysis for a family of simple depth-D linear networks that exhibit an interesting and meaningful transition between the kernel and rich regimes, and highlight an interesting role for the \emph{width} of the models. We further demonstrate this transition empirically for matrix factorization and multilayer non-linear networks.