More is Better in Modern Machine Learning: when Infinite Overparameterization is Optimal and Overfitting is Obligatory
0
Sign in to get full access
Introduction
The provided paper explores the surprising benefits of using highly overparameterized models in modern machine learning. It challenges the conventional wisdom that smaller, simpler models are preferable, and instead argues that more complex, overparameterized models can actually be optimal in many cases.
Related Work
The paper builds on a growing body of research that has challenged the traditional view of overfitting in machine learning. Recent studies, such as Lazy NTK and Rich DollarMu Regimes: A Gentle Tutorial, Deeper or Wider? A Perspective from Optimal Generalization, and Bayesian Inference and Consistent Predictions in Overparameterized Nonlinear Regression, have suggested that overparameterization can actually be beneficial for model performance and generalization.
Preliminaries
The paper introduces several key concepts that underpin its findings. It discusses the idea of
Plain English Explanation
The paper challenges the traditional view that smaller, simpler models are better in machine learning. It argues that in many cases, using highly overparameterized models - models with more parameters than training examples - can actually be the optimal approach. This is because overparameterized models can better capture the underlying complexity of the data, even if they appear to "overfit" the training data.
The authors explain that in certain scenarios, the optimal model complexity is actually infinite, meaning that the more parameters a model has, the better it will perform. This is counterintuitive to the common belief that overfitting is something to be avoided. Instead, the paper suggests that overfitting can be
The paper builds on a growing body of research that has challenged the traditional view of overfitting. Studies like Lazy NTK and Rich DollarMu Regimes: A Gentle Tutorial and Bayesian Inference and Consistent Predictions in Overparameterized Nonlinear Regression have suggested that overparameterization can actually be beneficial for model performance and generalization.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a theoretical and empirical analysis of the benefits of overparameterization in machine learning models. The authors consider a simple regression task, where the goal is to fit a function to a set of input-output pairs.
They show that when the true underlying function is complex, using a highly overparameterized model - one with more parameters than training examples - can lead to
The authors demonstrate this phenomenon both theoretically, using tools from high-dimensional statistics and random matrix theory, as well as empirically, through numerical experiments. They also explore the implications of this finding for the design of modern machine learning architectures, such as deeper or wider neural networks, and the impact of model width and density on generalization.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a compelling argument for the benefits of overparameterization in machine learning, challenging the traditional view that simpler is better. However, it is important to note that the findings are based on specific theoretical assumptions and a simplified regression task. The authors acknowledge that the real-world implications of these results may be more complex, and that further research is needed to understand the limits and caveats of this approach.
For example, the paper does not address the computational and memory costs associated with training and deploying highly overparameterized models. In practical applications, these resource constraints may be a significant factor in model design. Additionally, the paper focuses on a regression task, and it is unclear how the findings would translate to more complex tasks, such as classification or structured prediction.
Conclusion
The paper presents a thought-provoking perspective on the role of overparameterization in modern machine learning. It challenges the conventional wisdom that smaller, simpler models are preferable, and instead argues that in certain cases, the optimal model complexity is actually infinite. This finding has important implications for the design and deployment of machine learning systems, and suggests that the traditional view of overfitting may need to be reconsidered.
While the paper provides a strong theoretical and empirical foundation for its claims, it also highlights the need for further research to fully understand the practical implications and limitations of this approach. As the field of machine learning continues to evolve, studies like this one will play a crucial role in shaping our understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie effective model design and deployment.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
More is Better in Modern Machine Learning: when Infinite Overparameterization is Optimal and Overfitting is Obligatory
James B. Simon, Dhruva Karkada, Nikhil Ghosh, Mikhail Belkin
In our era of enormous neural networks, empirical progress has been driven by the philosophy that more is better. Recent deep learning practice has found repeatedly that larger model size, more data, and more computation (resulting in lower training loss) improves performance. In this paper, we give theoretical backing to these empirical observations by showing that these three properties hold in random feature (RF) regression, a class of models equivalent to shallow networks with only the last layer trained. Concretely, we first show that the test risk of RF regression decreases monotonically with both the number of features and the number of samples, provided the ridge penalty is tuned optimally. In particular, this implies that infinite width RF architectures are preferable to those of any finite width. We then proceed to demonstrate that, for a large class of tasks characterized by powerlaw eigenstructure, training to near-zero training loss is obligatory: near-optimal performance can only be achieved when the training error is much smaller than the test error. Grounding our theory in real-world data, we find empirically that standard computer vision tasks with convolutional neural tangent kernels clearly fall into this class. Taken together, our results tell a simple, testable story of the benefits of overparameterization, overfitting, and more data in random feature models.
Read more5/17/2024
🐍
0
The lazy (NTK) and rich ($mu$P) regimes: a gentle tutorial
Dhruva Karkada
A central theme of the modern machine learning paradigm is that larger neural networks achieve better performance on a variety of metrics. Theoretical analyses of these overparameterized models have recently centered around studying very wide neural networks. In this tutorial, we provide a nonrigorous but illustrative derivation of the following fact: in order to train wide networks effectively, there is only one degree of freedom in choosing hyperparameters such as the learning rate and the size of the initial weights. This degree of freedom controls the richness of training behavior: at minimum, the wide network trains lazily like a kernel machine, and at maximum, it exhibits feature learning in the so-called $mu$P regime. In this paper, we explain this richness scale, synthesize recent research results into a coherent whole, offer new perspectives and intuitions, and provide empirical evidence supporting our claims. In doing so, we hope to encourage further study of the richness scale, as it may be key to developing a scientific theory of feature learning in practical deep neural networks.
Read more5/1/2024
0
How Does Overparameterization Affect Features?
Ahmet Cagri Duzgun, Samy Jelassi, Yuanzhi Li
Overparameterization, the condition where models have more parameters than necessary to fit their training loss, is a crucial factor for the success of deep learning. However, the characteristics of the features learned by overparameterized networks are not well understood. In this work, we explore this question by comparing models with the same architecture but different widths. We first examine the expressivity of the features of these models, and show that the feature space of overparameterized networks cannot be spanned by concatenating many underparameterized features, and vice versa. This reveals that both overparameterized and underparameterized networks acquire some distinctive features. We then evaluate the performance of these models, and find that overparameterized networks outperform underparameterized networks, even when many of the latter are concatenated. We corroborate these findings using a VGG-16 and ResNet18 on CIFAR-10 and a Transformer on the MNLI classification dataset. Finally, we propose a toy setting to explain how overparameterized networks can learn some important features that the underparamaterized networks cannot learn.
Read more7/2/2024
0
Just How Flexible are Neural Networks in Practice?
Ravid Shwartz-Ziv, Micah Goldblum, Arpit Bansal, C. Bayan Bruss, Yann LeCun, Andrew Gordon Wilson
It is widely believed that a neural network can fit a training set containing at least as many samples as it has parameters, underpinning notions of overparameterized and underparameterized models. In practice, however, we only find solutions accessible via our training procedure, including the optimizer and regularizers, limiting flexibility. Moreover, the exact parameterization of the function class, built into an architecture, shapes its loss surface and impacts the minima we find. In this work, we examine the ability of neural networks to fit data in practice. Our findings indicate that: (1) standard optimizers find minima where the model can only fit training sets with significantly fewer samples than it has parameters; (2) convolutional networks are more parameter-efficient than MLPs and ViTs, even on randomly labeled data; (3) while stochastic training is thought to have a regularizing effect, SGD actually finds minima that fit more training data than full-batch gradient descent; (4) the difference in capacity to fit correctly labeled and incorrectly labeled samples can be predictive of generalization; (5) ReLU activation functions result in finding minima that fit more data despite being designed to avoid vanishing and exploding gradients in deep architectures.
Read more6/18/2024