A generalization gap estimation for overparameterized models via the Langevin functional variance
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This paper discusses the estimation of the generalization gap, the difference between generalization performance and training performance, for overparameterized models including neural networks. We first show that a functional variance, a key concept in defining a widely-applicable information criterion, characterizes the generalization gap even in overparameterized settings where a conventional theory cannot be applied. As the computational cost of the functional variance is expensive for the overparameterized models, we propose an efficient approximation of the function variance, the Langevin approximation of the functional variance (Langevin FV). This method leverages only the 1st-order gradient of the squared loss function, without referencing the 2nd-order gradient; this ensures that the computation is efficient and the implementation is consistent with gradient-based optimization algorithms. We demonstrate the Langevin FV numerically by estimating the generalization gaps of overparameterized linear regression and non-linear neural network models, containing more than a thousand of parameters therein.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Dec 2021.
Builds on
22 of 57 references.
References · 22
- 2018Neural Tangent Kernel: Convergence and Generalization in Neural Networkscited by 2,621
- 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,674
- 2019Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurtcited by 672
- 2019On Exact Computation with an Infinitely Wide Neural Netcited by 573
- 2019Benign Overfitting in Linear Regressioncited by 549
- 2019Surprises in High-Dimensional Ridgeless Least Squares Interpolationcited by 513
- 2017Stochastic Gradient Descent as Approximate Bayesian Inferencecited by 300
- 2014Theoretical guarantees for approximate sampling from smooth and log-concave densitiescited by 208
- 2018Why do deep convolutional networks generalize so poorly to small image transformations?cited by 198
- 2019Two models of double descent for weak featurescited by 195
- 2020Finite Versus Infinite Neural Networks: an Empirical Studycited by 157
- 2020The Neural Tangent Kernel in High Dimensions: Triple Descent and a Multi-Scale Theory of Generalizationcited by 101
10 more
- 2018Overfitting or perfect fitting? Risk bounds for classification and regression rules that interpolatecited by 99
- 2018Universal Statistics of Fisher Information in Deep Neural Networks: Mean Field Approachcited by 91
- 2019Scaling description of generalization with number of parameters in deep learningcited by 83
- 2018Sharp convergence rates for Langevin dynamics in the nonconvex settingcited by 68
- 2020Triple descent and the two kinds of overfitting: Where & why do they appear?cited by 65
- 2018The jamming transition as a paradigm to understand the loss landscape of deep neural networkscited by 62
- 2021Tensor Programs IIb: Architectural Universality of Neural Tangent Kernel Training Dynamicscited by 57
- 2019On the interplay between noise and curvature and its effect on optimization and generalizationcited by 44
- 2016Degrees of Freedom in Deep Neural Networkscited by 14
- 2021Asymptotic Risk of Overparameterized Likelihood Models: Double Descent Theory for Deep Neural Networkscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
2 papers.