PreprintCited by 36Stochastic Gradient Optimization TechniquesDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNeural Networks and Applications

Feature Learning in Infinite-Width Neural Networks

Open access
Yang, Greg, Hu, Edward J.·2020·arXiv

Abstract

As its width tends to infinity, a deep neural network's behavior under gradient descent can become simplified and predictable (e.g. given by the Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK)), if it is parametrized appropriately (e.g. the NTK parametrization). However, we show that the standard and NTK parametrizations of a neural network do not admit infinite-width limits that can learn features, which is crucial for pretraining and transfer learning such as with BERT. We propose simple modifications to the standard parametrization to allow for feature learning in the limit. Using the *Tensor Programs* technique, we derive explicit formulas for such limits. On Word2Vec and few-shot learning on Omniglot via MAML, two canonical tasks that rely crucially on feature learning, we compute these limits exactly. We find that they outperform both NTK baselines and finite-width networks, with the latter approaching the infinite-width feature learning performance as width increases. More generally, we classify a natural space of neural network parametrizations that generalizes standard, NTK, and Mean Field parametrizations. We show 1) any parametrization in this space either admits feature learning or has an infinite-width training dynamics given by kernel gradient descent, but not both; 2) any such infinite-width limit can be computed using the Tensor Programs technique. Code for our experiments can be found at github.com/edwardjhu/TP4.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2011.14522

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Typically α is set as 16 or 32 and never tuned.

    “Typically α is set as 16 or 32 and never tuned (Hu et al., 2022;Yang & Hu, 2020).”

    From AdaLoRA: Adaptive Budget Allocation for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (2023) · cites this paper as Yang & Hu, 2020

    The passages from the algorithm section (p. 37) and Table 4 (p. 38) concern α as a hyperparameter of the paper’s own network; the authors explicitly sweep it. Searches for 16, 32, and α tuning found no passage establishing the claimed typical practice, so the paper’s use of α does not verify the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • LoRA scales ∆x by α/r where α is a constant in r, so the magnitude of output can be consistent given different r.

    “LoRA scales ∆x by α/r where α is a constant in r.As a result, the magnitude of output can be consistent given different r.”

    From AdaLoRA: Adaptive Budget Allocation for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (2023) · cites this paper as Yang & Hu, 2020

    Section 3.2 (p. 9) defines r as an exponent governing how feature changes scale with network width, not as a LoRA rank. Searches for LoRA, α/r scaling, and output magnitude across ranks found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [8][8] Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. arXiv:2005.14165 [cs] , July 2020. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165 . - · arXiv
  2. [44][44] Samuel S. Schoenholz, Justin Gilmer, Surya Ganguli, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein. Deep Information Propagation. 2017. URL https://openreview.net/pdf?id=H1W1UN9gg . -
  3. [55][55] Greg Yang and Samuel S. Schoenholz. Mean Field Residual Network: On the Edge of Chaos. In Advances in neural information processing systems , 2017. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, G., & Hu, E. J.
Affiliations
Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3110116503
Cited by
35
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
Keywords
infinite-width neural networks, representation learning, neural tangent kernel, pre-training, transfer learning, BERT, Word2Vec, few-shot learning, model-agnostic meta-learning, Omniglot, neural network parametrization

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