The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Triple descent and the two kinds of overfitting: Where & why do they appear?
Abstract
A recent line of research has highlighted the existence of a "double descent" phenomenon in deep learning, whereby increasing the number of training examples $N$ causes the generalization error of neural networks to peak when $N$ is of the same order as the number of parameters $P$. In earlier works, a similar phenomenon was shown to exist in simpler models such as linear regression, where the peak instead occurs when $N$ is equal to the input dimension $D$. Since both peaks coincide with the interpolation threshold, they are often conflated in the litterature. In this paper, we show that despite their apparent similarity, these two scenarios are inherently different. In fact, both peaks can co-exist when neural networks are applied to noisy regression tasks. The relative size of the peaks is then governed by the degree of nonlinearity of the activation function. Building on recent developments in the analysis of random feature models, we provide a theoretical ground for this sample-wise triple descent. As shown previously, the nonlinear peak at $N\!=\!P$ is a true divergence caused by the extreme sensitivity of the output function to both the noise corrupting the labels and the initialization of the random features (or the weights in neural networks). This peak survives in the absence of noise, but can be suppressed by regularization. In contrast, the linear peak at $N\!=\!D$ is solely due to overfitting the noise in the labels, and forms earlier during training. We show that this peak is implicitly regularized by the nonlinearity, which is why it only becomes salient at high noise and is weakly affected by explicit regularization. Throughout the paper, we compare analytical results obtained in the random feature model with the outcomes of numerical experiments involving deep neural networks.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“A double descent of validation loss has been documented in some circumstances, but is considered unusual among practitioners Nakkiran et al. (2019); Belkin et al. (2018); d'Ascoli et al. (2020).”
From Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasets (2022) · cites this paper as d'Ascoli et al. (2020)
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 49
- Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I and Hinton G E 2012 Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems pp 1097-105
- LeCun Y, Bengio Y and Hinton G 2015 Deep learning Nature 521 436-44 · DOI · Paper page
- Hinton G et al 2012 Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition: the shared views of four research groups IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 29 82-97 · DOI · Paper page
- Sutskever I, Vinyals O and Quoc V L 2014 Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems pp 3104-12
- Zhang C, Bengio S, Hardt M, Recht B and Vinyals O 2016 Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization (arXiv:1611.03530) · arXiv
- Advani M S and Saxe A M 2017 High-dimensional dynamics of generalization error in neural networks (arXiv:1710.03667) · arXiv
- Neyshabur B, Li Z, Bhojanapalli S, LeCun Y and Srebro N 2018 Towards understanding the role of over- parametrization in generalization of neural networks (arXiv:1805.12076) · arXiv
- Belkin M, Hsu D, Ma S and Mandal S 2018 Reconciling modern machine learning and the bias-variance trade-off (arXiv:1812.11118) · arXiv
- Geiger M, Jacot A, Spigler S, Gabriel F, Sagun L, d'Ascoli S, Biroli G, Hongler C and Wyart M 2020 Scaling description of generalization with number of parameters in deep learning J. Stat. Mech. 023401 · DOI
- Spigler S, Geiger M, d'Ascoli S, Sagun L, Biroli G and Wyart M 2019 A jamming transition from under-to over-parametrization affects generalization in deep learning J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52 474001 · DOI
- Mei S and Montanari A 2019 The generalization error of random features regression: precise asymptotics and double descent curve (arXiv:1908.05355) · arXiv
- Nakkiran P, Kaplun G, Bansal Y, Yang T, Barak B and Sutskever I 2019 Deep double descent: where bigger models and more data hurt (arXiv:1912.02292) · arXiv
- Nakkiran P 2019 More data can hurt for linear regression: sample-wise double descent (arXiv:1912.07242) · arXiv
- Opper M and Kinzel W 1996 Statistical mechanics of generalization Models of Neural Networks III (Berlin: Springer) pp 151-209
- Engel A and Van den Broeck C 2001 Statistical Mechanics of Learning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
- Krzakala F and Kurchan J 2007 Landscape analysis of constraint satisfaction problems Phys. Rev. E 76 021122 · DOI
- Franz S and Parisi G 2016 The simplest model of jamming J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49 145001 · DOI
- Geiger M, Spigler S, d'Ascoli S, Sagun L, Baity-Jesi M, Biroli G and Wyart M 2019 Jamming transition as a paradigm to understand the loss landscape of deep neural networks Phys. Rev. E 100 012115 · DOI · Paper page
- Nakkiran P, Venkat P, Kakade S and Ma T 2020 Optimal regularization can mitigate double descent (arXiv:2003.01897) · arXiv
- d'Ascoli S, Refinetti M, Biroli G and Krzakala F 2020 Double trouble in double descent: bias and variance(s) in the lazy regime (arXiv:2003.01054) · arXiv
- Cun Y L, Kanter I and Solla S A 1991 Eigenvalues of covariance matrices: application to neural-network learning Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 2396 · DOI
- Krogh A and Hertz J A 1992 Generalization in a linear perceptron in the presence of noise J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 25 1135 · DOI
- Duin R P W 1995 Small sample size generalization Proc. Scandinavian Conf. Image Analysis vol 2 pp 957-64
- Hastie T, Montanari A, Rosset S and Tibshirani R J 2019 Surprises in high-dimensional ridgeless least squares interpolation (arXiv:1903.08560) · arXiv
- Emami M, Sahraee-Ardakan M, Pandit P, Rangan S and Fletcher A K 2020 Generalization error of generalized linear models in high dimensions (arXiv:2005.00180) · arXiv
- Aubin B, Krzakala F, Lu Y M and Zdeborová L 2020 Generalization error in high-dimensional perceptrons: approaching Bayes error with convex optimization (arXiv:2006.06560) · arXiv
- Li Z, Xie C and Wang Q 2020 Provable more data hurt in high dimensional least squares estimator (arXiv:2008.06296) · arXiv
- Saxe A M, McClelland J L and Ganguli S 2013 Exact solutions to the nonlinear dynamics of learning in deep linear neural networks (arXiv:1312.6120) · arXiv
- Lampinen A K and Ganguli S 2018 An analytic theory of generalization dynamics and transfer learning in deep linear networks (arXiv:1809.10374) · arXiv
- Rahimi A and Recht B 2008 Random features for large-scale kernel machines Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems pp 1177-84
- Loog M and Duin R P W 2012 The dipping phenomenon Joint IAPR Int. Workshops on Statistical Techniques in Pattern Recognition (SPR) and Structural and Syntactic Pattern Recognition (SSPR) (Berlin: Springer) pp 310-7
- Loog M, Tom V and Alexander M 2019 Minimizers of the empirical risk and risk monotonicity Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems pp 7478-87
- Min Y, Chen L and Karbasi A 2020 The curious case of adversarially robust models: more data can help, double descend, or hurt generalization (arXiv:2002.11080) · arXiv
- Liang T, Rakhlin A and Zhai X 2019 On the risk of minimum-norm interpolants and restricted lower isometry of kernels (arXiv:1908.10292) · arXiv
- Chen L, Min Y, Belkin M and Karbasi A 2020 Multiple descent: design your own generalization curve (arXiv:2008.01036) · arXiv
- Adlam B and Pennington J 2020 The neural tangent kernel in high dimensions: triple descent and a multi-scale theory of generalization (arXiv:2008.06786) · arXiv
- Gerace F, Loureiro B, Krzakala F, Mézard M and Zdeborová L 2020 Generalisation error in learning with random features and the hidden manifold model (arXiv:2002.09339) · arXiv
- Pennington J and Worah P 2017 Nonlinear random matrix theory for deep learning Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems pp 2637-46
- Jacot A, Gabriel F and Hongler C 2018 Neural tangent kernel: convergence and generalization in neural networks Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems pp 8571-80
- Chizat L, Oyallon E and Bach F 2019 On lazy training in differentiable programming Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems vol 32 ed H Wallach, H Larochelle, A Beygelzimer, F d'Alché Buc, E Fox and R Garnett (New York: Curran Associates) pp 2933-43
- Péché S et al 2019 A note on the Pennington-Worah distribution Electron. Commun. Probab. 24 1-7 · DOI
- Goldt S, Reeves G, Mézard M, Krzakala F and Zdeborová L 2020 The Gaussian equivalence of generative models for learning with two-layer neural networks (arXiv:2006.14709) · arXiv
- Benigni L and Péché S 2019 Eigenvalue distribution of nonlinear models of random matrices (arXiv:1904.03090) · arXiv
- Adlam B, Levinson J and Pennington J 2019 A random matrix perspective on mixtures of nonlinearities for deep learning (arXiv:1912.00827) · arXiv
- Liao Z and Couillet R 2018 On the spectrum of random features maps of high dimensional data (arXiv:1805.11916) · arXiv
- Advani M, Lahiri S and Ganguli S 2013 Statistical mechanics of complex neural systems and high dimensional data J. Stat. Mech. P03014 · DOI
- Dupic T and Pérez Castillo I 2014 Spectral density of products of Wishart dilute random matrices: I. The dense case (arXiv:1401.7802) · arXiv
- Akemann G, Ipsen J R and Kieburg M 2013 Products of rectangular random matrices: singular values and progressive scattering Phys. Rev. E 88 052118 · DOI
- Wilson A G and Izmailov P 2020 Bayesian deep learning and a probabilistic perspective of generalization (arXiv:2002.08791) · arXiv
Cited by
Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasets
Power, A., Burda, Y., Edwards, H., Babuschkin, I., & Misra, V. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.02177 · Cited by 83
Metadata
- Authors
- d'Ascoli, S., Sagun, L., & Biroli, G.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2020
- arXiv
- 2006.03509
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.