-
How isotropic kernels perform on simple invariants
Authors:
Jonas Paccolat,
Stefano Spigler,
Matthieu Wyart
Abstract:
We investigate how the training curve of isotropic kernel methods depends on the symmetry of the task to be learned, in several settings. (i) We consider a regression task, where the target function is a Gaussian random field that depends only on $d_\parallel$ variables, fewer than the input dimension $d$. We compute the expected test error $ε$ that follows $ε\sim p^{-β}$ where $p$ is the size of…
▽ More
We investigate how the training curve of isotropic kernel methods depends on the symmetry of the task to be learned, in several settings. (i) We consider a regression task, where the target function is a Gaussian random field that depends only on $d_\parallel$ variables, fewer than the input dimension $d$. We compute the expected test error $ε$ that follows $ε\sim p^{-β}$ where $p$ is the size of the training set. We find that $β\sim 1/d$ independently of $d_\parallel$, supporting previous findings that the presence of invariants does not resolve the curse of dimensionality for kernel regression. (ii) Next we consider support-vector binary classification and introduce the stripe model where the data label depends on a single coordinate $y(\underline{x}) = y(x_1)$, corresponding to parallel decision boundaries separating labels of different signs, and consider that there is no margin at these interfaces. We argue and confirm numerically that for large bandwidth, $β= \frac{d-1+ξ}{3d-3+ξ}$, where $ξ\in (0,2)$ is the exponent characterizing the singularity of the kernel at the origin. This estimation improves classical bounds obtainable from Rademacher complexity. In this setting there is no curse of dimensionality since $β\rightarrow 1 / 3$ as $d\rightarrow\infty$. (iii) We confirm these findings for the spherical model for which $y(\underline{x}) = y(|\underline{x}|)$. (iv) In the stripe model, we show that if the data are compressed along their invariants by some factor $λ$ (an operation believed to take place in deep networks), the test error is reduced by a factor $λ^{-\frac{2(d-1)}{3d-3+ξ}}$.
△ Less
Submitted 14 December, 2020; v1 submitted 17 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
-
Disentangling feature and lazy training in deep neural networks
Authors:
Mario Geiger,
Stefano Spigler,
Arthur Jacot,
Matthieu Wyart
Abstract:
Two distinct limits for deep learning have been derived as the network width $h\rightarrow \infty$, depending on how the weights of the last layer scale with $h$. In the Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK) limit, the dynamics becomes linear in the weights and is described by a frozen kernel $Θ$. By contrast, in the Mean-Field limit, the dynamics can be expressed in terms of the distribution of the paramet…
▽ More
Two distinct limits for deep learning have been derived as the network width $h\rightarrow \infty$, depending on how the weights of the last layer scale with $h$. In the Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK) limit, the dynamics becomes linear in the weights and is described by a frozen kernel $Θ$. By contrast, in the Mean-Field limit, the dynamics can be expressed in terms of the distribution of the parameters associated with a neuron, that follows a partial differential equation. In this work we consider deep networks where the weights in the last layer scale as $αh^{-1/2}$ at initialization. By varying $α$ and $h$, we probe the crossover between the two limits. We observe the previously identified regimes of lazy training and feature training. In the lazy-training regime, the dynamics is almost linear and the NTK barely changes after initialization. The feature-training regime includes the mean-field formulation as a limiting case and is characterized by a kernel that evolves in time, and learns some features. We perform numerical experiments on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, EMNIST and CIFAR10 and consider various architectures. We find that (i) The two regimes are separated by an $α^*$ that scales as $h^{-1/2}$. (ii) Network architecture and data structure play an important role in determining which regime is better: in our tests, fully-connected networks perform generally better in the lazy-training regime, unlike convolutional networks. (iii) In both regimes, the fluctuations $δF$ induced on the learned function by initial conditions decay as $δF\sim 1/\sqrt{h}$, leading to a performance that increases with $h$. The same improvement can also be obtained at an intermediate width by ensemble-averaging several networks. (iv) In the feature-training regime we identify a time scale $t_1\sim\sqrt{h}α$, such that for $t\ll t_1$ the dynamics is linear.
△ Less
Submitted 4 October, 2020; v1 submitted 19 June, 2019;
originally announced June 2019.
-
Asymptotic learning curves of kernel methods: empirical data v.s. Teacher-Student paradigm
Authors:
Stefano Spigler,
Mario Geiger,
Matthieu Wyart
Abstract:
How many training data are needed to learn a supervised task? It is often observed that the generalization error decreases as $n^{-β}$ where $n$ is the number of training examples and $β$ an exponent that depends on both data and algorithm. In this work we measure $β$ when applying kernel methods to real datasets. For MNIST we find $β\approx 0.4$ and for CIFAR10 $β\approx 0.1$, for both regression…
▽ More
How many training data are needed to learn a supervised task? It is often observed that the generalization error decreases as $n^{-β}$ where $n$ is the number of training examples and $β$ an exponent that depends on both data and algorithm. In this work we measure $β$ when applying kernel methods to real datasets. For MNIST we find $β\approx 0.4$ and for CIFAR10 $β\approx 0.1$, for both regression and classification tasks, and for Gaussian or Laplace kernels. To rationalize the existence of non-trivial exponents that can be independent of the specific kernel used, we study the Teacher-Student framework for kernels. In this scheme, a Teacher generates data according to a Gaussian random field, and a Student learns them via kernel regression. With a simplifying assumption -- namely that the data are sampled from a regular lattice -- we derive analytically $β$ for translation invariant kernels, using previous results from the kriging literature. Provided that the Student is not too sensitive to high frequencies, $β$ depends only on the smoothness and dimension of the training data. We confirm numerically that these predictions hold when the training points are sampled at random on a hypersphere. Overall, the test error is found to be controlled by the magnitude of the projection of the true function on the kernel eigenvectors whose rank is larger than $n$. Using this idea we predict relate the exponent $β$ to an exponent $a$ describing how the coefficients of the true function in the eigenbasis of the kernel decay with rank. We extract $a$ from real data by performing kernel PCA, leading to $β\approx0.36$ for MNIST and $β\approx0.07$ for CIFAR10, in good agreement with observations. We argue that these rather large exponents are possible due to the small effective dimension of the data.
△ Less
Submitted 18 August, 2020; v1 submitted 26 May, 2019;
originally announced May 2019.
-
A jamming transition from under- to over-parametrization affects loss landscape and generalization
Authors:
Stefano Spigler,
Mario Geiger,
Stéphane d'Ascoli,
Levent Sagun,
Giulio Biroli,
Matthieu Wyart
Abstract:
We argue that in fully-connected networks a phase transition delimits the over- and under-parametrized regimes where fitting can or cannot be achieved. Under some general conditions, we show that this transition is sharp for the hinge loss. In the whole over-parametrized regime, poor minima of the loss are not encountered during training since the number of constraints to satisfy is too small to h…
▽ More
We argue that in fully-connected networks a phase transition delimits the over- and under-parametrized regimes where fitting can or cannot be achieved. Under some general conditions, we show that this transition is sharp for the hinge loss. In the whole over-parametrized regime, poor minima of the loss are not encountered during training since the number of constraints to satisfy is too small to hamper minimization. Our findings support a link between this transition and the generalization properties of the network: as we increase the number of parameters of a given model, starting from an under-parametrized network, we observe that the generalization error displays three phases: (i) initial decay, (ii) increase until the transition point --- where it displays a cusp --- and (iii) slow decay toward a constant for the rest of the over-parametrized regime. Thereby we identify the region where the classical phenomenon of over-fitting takes place, and the region where the model keeps improving, in line with previous empirical observations for modern neural networks.
△ Less
Submitted 18 June, 2019; v1 submitted 22 October, 2018;
originally announced October 2018.
-
Comparing Dynamics: Deep Neural Networks versus Glassy Systems
Authors:
M. Baity-Jesi,
L. Sagun,
M. Geiger,
S. Spigler,
G. Ben Arous,
C. Cammarota,
Y. LeCun,
M. Wyart,
G. Biroli
Abstract:
We analyze numerically the training dynamics of deep neural networks (DNN) by using methods developed in statistical physics of glassy systems. The two main issues we address are (1) the complexity of the loss landscape and of the dynamics within it, and (2) to what extent DNNs share similarities with glassy systems. Our findings, obtained for different architectures and datasets, suggest that dur…
▽ More
We analyze numerically the training dynamics of deep neural networks (DNN) by using methods developed in statistical physics of glassy systems. The two main issues we address are (1) the complexity of the loss landscape and of the dynamics within it, and (2) to what extent DNNs share similarities with glassy systems. Our findings, obtained for different architectures and datasets, suggest that during the training process the dynamics slows down because of an increasingly large number of flat directions. At large times, when the loss is approaching zero, the system diffuses at the bottom of the landscape. Despite some similarities with the dynamics of mean-field glassy systems, in particular, the absence of barrier crossing, we find distinctive dynamical behaviors in the two cases, showing that the statistical properties of the corresponding loss and energy landscapes are different. In contrast, when the network is under-parametrized we observe a typical glassy behavior, thus suggesting the existence of different phases depending on whether the network is under-parametrized or over-parametrized.
△ Less
Submitted 7 June, 2018; v1 submitted 19 March, 2018;
originally announced March 2018.
