Cited by 143Neural Networks and ApplicationsStochastic Gradient Optimization TechniquesTheoretical and Computational Physics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Jamming transition as a paradigm to understand the loss landscape of deep neural networks

Open access
Geiger, Mario, Spigler, Stefano, d'Ascoli, Stéphane, Sagun, Levent, Baity-Jesi, Marco, Biroli, Giulio, Wyart, Matthieu·2019·Physical Review E

Abstract

Deep learning has been immensely successful at a variety of tasks, ranging from classification to artificial intelligence. Learning corresponds to fitting training data, which is implemented by descending a very high-dimensional loss function. Understanding under which conditions neural networks do not get stuck in poor minima of the loss, and how the landscape of that loss evolves as depth is increased, remains a challenge. Here we predict, and test empirically, an analogy between this landscape and the energy landscape of repulsive ellipses. We argue that in fully connected deep networks a phase transition delimits the over- and underparametrized regimes where fitting can or cannot be achieved. In the vicinity of this transition, properties of the curvature of the minima of the loss (the spectrum of the Hessian) are critical. This transition shares direct similarities with the jamming transition by which particles form a disordered solid as the density is increased, which also occurs in certain classes of computational optimization and learning problems such as the perceptron. Our analysis gives a simple explanation as to why poor minima of the loss cannot be encountered in the overparametrized regime. Interestingly, we observe that the ability of fully connected networks to fit random data is independent of their depth, an independence that appears to also hold for real data. We also study a quantity Δ which characterizes how well (Δ<0) or badly (Δ>0) a datum is learned. At the critical point it is power-law distributed on several decades, P_{+}(Δ)∼Δ^{θ} for Δ>0 and P_{-}(Δ)∼(-Δ)^{-γ} for Δ<0, with exponents that depend on the choice of activation function. This observation suggests that near the transition the loss landscape has a hierarchical structure and that the learning dynamics is prone to avalanche-like dynamics, with abrupt changes in the set of patterns that are learned.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreve.100.012115

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior work (Advani and Saxe 2017; Geiger et al. 2019b, 2019a) points out that double descent is not observed when optimal early stopping is used.

    “Advani and Saxe (2017), Geiger et al (2019b), (2019a) also point out that doubledescent is not observed when optimal early-stopping is used.”

    From Deep double descent: where bigger models and more data hurt* (2021) · cites this paper as Geiger et al (2019b)

    The Cross-entropy loss section says that users stop training at finite times and that doing so blurs critical behavior near jamming. The Conclusion discusses generalization as a topic for further study, but our copy does not say whether double descent disappears with optimal early stopping (searched: double descent, early stopping, optimal stopping). (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. A. Krizhevsky, 2012, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems
  2. 10.1109/MSP.2012.2205597 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Y. LeCun, 1995, The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks
  4. K. He, 2016, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
  5. S. Ioffe, 2015, Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning
  6. G. Montufar, 2014, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems
  7. 10.1109/TNNLS.2013.2293637 · DOI
  8. M. Raghu, 2017, Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning
  9. R. Eldan, 2016, Proceedings of the Conference on Learning Theory
  10. H. Lee, 2017, Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Learning Theory
  11. 10.1088/0305-4470/21/1/030 · DOI
  12. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.2432 · DOI
  13. C. Zhang, 2017, Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
  14. 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.587 · DOI
  15. A. Choromanska, 2015, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics
  16. C. D. Freeman, 2017, Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
  17. E. Hoffer, 2017, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems
  18. L. Sagun, 2017, Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
  19. 10.1039/C7CP01108C · DOI
  20. Z. C. Lipton, 2016, Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
  21. M. Baity-Jesi, 2018, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning
  22. 10.1051/anphys:2006003 · DOI
  23. A. J. Liu, 2011, Dynamical Heterogeneities in Glasses, Colloids, and Granular Media
  24. 10.1103/PhysRevE.76.021122 · DOI
  25. 10.1103/PhysRevE.76.031131 · DOI
  26. 10.21468/SciPostPhys.2.3.019 · DOI
  27. 10.1088/1751-8113/49/14/145001 · DOI
  28. 10.1103/PhysRevE.72.051306 · DOI
  29. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.098301 · DOI
  30. 10.1126/science.1093010 · DOI
  31. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.255501 · DOI
  32. 10.1209/0295-5075/87/26001 · DOI
  33. 10.1073/pnas.1812457115 · DOI
  34. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.125502 · DOI
  35. 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031214-014614 · DOI
  36. 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.022139 · DOI
  37. 10.1038/ncomms4725 · DOI
  38. A. C. Anderson, 1981, Amorphous Solids: Low Temperature Properties
  39. 10.1103/PhysRevE.60.687 · DOI
  40. 10.1103/PhysRevE.68.011306 · DOI
  41. 10.1039/C4SM00561A · DOI
  42. 10.1209/0295-5075/114/26003 · DOI
  43. 10.1073/pnas.1511134112 · DOI
  44. 10.1039/C2SM25878A · DOI
  45. 10.1039/c3sm50515d · DOI
  46. 10.1209/0295-5075/99/58003 · DOI
  47. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.205501 · DOI
  48. 10.1088/1742-5468/2014/10/P10009 · DOI
  49. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.125504 · DOI
  50. X. Gastaldi, 2017, Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
  51. A. M. Saxe, 2014, Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
  52. D. P. Kingma, 2015, Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
  53. J. Pennington, 2017, Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Geiger, M., Spigler, S., d'Ascoli, S., Sagun, L., Baity-Jesi, M., Biroli, G., & Wyart, M.
Affiliations
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
Physical Review E
Published
2019-07-11
Volume
100
Issue
1
Pages
012115-012115
ISSN
  • 2470-0045 (ISSN-L)
  • 2470-0053
OpenAlex
W2959995783
Cited by
143
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 20
FWCI
9.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical review. E (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Simons Foundation (454935, 454953)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (200021-165509)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Condensed Matter Physics › Theoretical and Computational Physics
Keywords
jamming transition, loss landscape, deep neural network, overparameterization, phase transitions, Hessian spectrum, perceptron, fully connected networks, power-law distribution, avalanche dynamics, learning dynamics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review