Investigating the Impact of Model Width and Density on Generalization in Presence of Label Noise
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Increasing the size of overparameterized neural networks has been a key in achieving state-of-the-art performance. This is captured by the double descent phenomenon, where the test loss follows a decreasing-increasing-decreasing pattern (or sometimes monotonically decreasing) as model width increases. However, the effect of label noise on the test loss curve has not been fully explored. In this work, we uncover an intriguing phenomenon where label noise leads to a textitfinal ascent in the originally observed double descent curve. Specifically, under a sufficiently large noise-to-sample-size ratio, optimal generalization is achieved at intermediate widths. Through theoretical analysis, we attribute this phenomenon to the shape transition of test loss variance induced by label noise. Furthermore, we extend the final ascent phenomenon to model density and provide the first theoretical characterization showing that reducing density by randomly dropping trainable parameters improves generalization under label noise. We also thoroughly examine the roles of regularization and sample size. Surprisingly, we find that larger ℓ2 regularization and robust learning methods against label noise exacerbate the final ascent. We confirm the validity of our findings through extensive experiments on ReLu networks trained on MNIST, ResNets/ViTs trained on CIFAR-10/100, and InceptionResNet-v2 trained on Stanford Cars with real-world noisy labels.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 46 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Aug 2022.
Builds on
46 of 61 references.
References · 46
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
- 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,114
- 2018The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networkscited by 2,250
- 2016Inception-v4, Inception-ResNet and the Impact of Residual Connections on Learningcited by 1,509
- 2018Co-teaching: Robust Training of Deep Neural Networks with Extremely Noisy Labelscited by 1,053
- 2018Generalized Cross Entropy Loss for Training Deep Neural Networks with Noisy Labelscited by 994
- 2018Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offcited by 919
- 2018SNIP: Single-shot Network Pruning based on Connection Sensitivitycited by 802
34 more
- 2020DivideMix: Learning with Noisy Labels as Semi-supervised Learningcited by 691
- 2019Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurtcited by 667
- 2016Making Deep Neural Networks Robust to Label Noise: a Loss Correction Approachcited by 663
- 2017MentorNet: Learning Data-Driven Curriculum for Very Deep Neural Networks on Corrupted Labelscited by 652
- 2019Benign Overfitting in Linear Regressioncited by 544
- 2019Surprises in High-Dimensional Ridgeless Least Squares Interpolationcited by 508
- 2020Pruning neural networks without any data by iteratively conserving synaptic flowcited by 475
- 2020Picking Winning Tickets Before Training by Preserving Gradient Flowcited by 467
- 2020Early-Learning Regularization Prevents Memorization of Noisy Labelscited by 414
- 2019The generalization error of random features regression: Precise asymptotics and double descent curvecited by 410
- 2014In Search of the Real Inductive Bias: On the Role of Implicit Regularization in Deep Learningcited by 339
- 2017High-dimensional dynamics of generalization error in neural networkscited by 238
- 2020Comparing Rewinding and Fine-tuning in Neural Network Pruningcited by 238
- 2019Are Anchor Points Really Indispensable in Label-Noise Learning?cited by 208
- 2019SGD on Neural Networks Learns Functions of Increasing Complexitycited by 203
- 2019Two models of double descent for weak featurescited by 194
- 2020Pruning Neural Networks at Initialization: Why are We Missing the Mark?cited by 181
- 2020Benign overfitting in ridge regressioncited by 152
- 2020Rethinking Bias-Variance Trade-off for Generalization of Neural Networkscited by 107
- 2020Optimal Regularization Can Mitigate Double Descentcited by 107
- 2020The Neural Tangent Kernel in High Dimensions: Triple Descent and a Multi-Scale Theory of Generalizationcited by 101
- 2018The Singular Values of Convolutional Layerscited by 95
- 2020Double Trouble in Double Descent : Bias and Variance(s) in the Lazy Regimecited by 95
- 2022Benign Overfitting in Two-layer Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 90
- 2020Understanding Double Descent Requires a Fine-Grained Bias-Variance Decompositioncited by 75
- 2022Benign Overfitting without Linearity: Neural Network Classifiers Trained by Gradient Descent for Noisy Linear Datacited by 74
- 2018A jamming transition from under- to over-parametrization affects loss landscape and generalizationcited by 65
- 2022Benign, Tempered, or Catastrophic: A Taxonomy of Overfittingcited by 36
- 2019Exact expressions for double descent and implicit regularization via surrogate random designcited by 35
- 2020Are wider nets better given the same number of parameters?cited by 27
- 2021The Interplay Between Implicit Bias and Benign Overfitting in Two-Layer Linear Networkscited by 18
- 2016Embracing Error to Enable Rapid Crowdsourcingcited by 15
- 2021On the Role of Optimization in Double Descent: A Least Squares Studycited by 7
- 2021What training reveals about neural network complexitycited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2.
2 papers.