Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2024
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11463 |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866914836711997440 |
|---|---|
| author | Shwartz-Ziv, Ravid Goldblum, Micah Bansal, Arpit Bruss, C. Bayan LeCun, Yann Wilson, Andrew Gordon |
| author_facet | Shwartz-Ziv, Ravid Goldblum, Micah Bansal, Arpit Bruss, C. Bayan LeCun, Yann Wilson, Andrew Gordon |
| contents | 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. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2406_11463 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Just How Flexible are Neural Networks in Practice? Shwartz-Ziv, Ravid Goldblum, Micah Bansal, Arpit Bruss, C. Bayan LeCun, Yann Wilson, Andrew Gordon Machine Learning 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. |
| title | Just How Flexible are Neural Networks in Practice? |
| topic | Machine Learning |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11463 |