Computation in Very Wide Neural Networks
summary
Claims that fully connected networks with width → ∞ map to Gaussian processes and that training dynamics linearize to a frozen kernel are supported with formulas and experiments. Bayesian inference for squared loss reduces to exact linear algebra, and NNGP posteriors often match or beat hyperparameter‑tuned SGD on MSE for FCNs. Convolutional architectures reveal a notable gap: pooling choice matters and finite CNNs can outperform kernels (other work reports ~5–10% gaps). Empirics run up to CIFAR‑10 with channels ≈1000 and ensemble linearization agrees up to a point. infinitely wide = GP NTK frozen kernel
AI-written summary · about
chapters (19)
- 0:00Intro
- 0:45Outline
- 4:36Starting point
- 5:53Single-hidden layer (shallow) neural networks of infinite width Consider a NN which
- 10:21What GP does it correspond to?
- 11:52Properties of the NNGP
- 13:19Bayesian inference with a GP prior (Review)
- 15:05Experiments from original work
- 16:50Performance comparison
- 17:45NNGP performance across hyperparameters
- 18:45Large depth behavior & fixed points
- 19:56Phase diagrams: experiments vs. theory
- 20:08Performance trends with width and dataset size
- 31:21Empirical comparison of various NN-GPS
- 33:25Empirical trends
- 34:06Best performing networks: comparison between GPs and SGD-NNS
- 38:24Partway summary
- 41:32What dynamics occurs in parameter space?
- 44:46Closing Remarks
related talks
01h 14mRecent Developments in Over-parametrized Neural Networks, Part II
19mThe Spectrum of Nonlinear Random Matrices for Ultra-Wide Neural Networks
17mUniversality of Neural Networks
01h 14mRecent Developments in Over-parametrized Neural Networks, Part I
58mIntroduction to the tensor-programs framework, a PL approach that helps analyse ...
01h 20mThe elusive generalization: classical bounds to double descent to grokking
28mNext-generation frameworks for Large-scale Machine Learning
34mThe physics of deep learning using tensor networks
