mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Understanding Sparse Feature Updates in Deep Networks using Iterative Linearisation

arXiv 2211.12345 ↗First posted 22 Nov 2022cs.LG stat.MLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Larger and deeper networks generalise well despite their increased capacity to overfit. Understanding why this happens is theoretically and practically important. One recent approach looks at the infinitely wide limits of such networks and their corresponding kernels. However, these theoretical tools cannot fully explain finite networks as the empirical kernel changes significantly during gradient-descent-based training in contrast to infinite networks. In this work, we derive an iterative linearised training method as a novel empirical tool to further investigate this distinction, allowing us to control for sparse (i.e. infrequent) feature updates and quantify the frequency of feature learning needed to achieve comparable performance. We justify iterative linearisation as an interpolation between a finite analog of the infinite width regime, which does not learn features, and standard gradient descent training, which does. Informally, we also show that it is analogous to a damped version of the Gauss-Newton algorithm -- a second-order method. We show that in a variety of cases, iterative linearised training surprisingly performs on par with standard training, noting in particular how much less frequent feature learning is required to achieve comparable performance. We also show that feature learning is essential for good performance. Since such feature learning inevitably causes changes in the NTK kernel, we provide direct negative evidence for the NTK theory, which states the NTK kernel remains constant during training.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Nov 2022.

Builds on

15 of 18 references.

References · 15

  1. 2018Neural Tangent Kernel: Convergence and Generalization in Neural Networkscited by 2,597
  2. 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,657
  3. 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,279
  4. 2015Optimizing Neural Networks with Kronecker-factored Approximate Curvaturecited by 776
  5. 2019Wide Neural Networks of Any Depth Evolve as Linear Models Under Gradient Descentcited by 732
  6. 2018On Lazy Training in Differentiable Programmingcited by 671
  7. 2019Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurtcited by 667
  8. 2019On Exact Computation with an Infinitely Wide Neural Netcited by 572
  9. 2014Identifying and attacking the saddle point problem in high-dimensional non-convex optimizationcited by 286
  10. 2019What's Hidden in a Randomly Weighted Neural Network?cited by 236
  11. 2020The large learning rate phase of deep learning: the catapult mechanismcited by 206
  12. 2020Deep learning versus kernel learning: an empirical study of loss landscape geometry and the time evolution of the Neural Tangent Kernelcited by 185
3 more
  1. 2020Finite Versus Infinite Neural Networks: an Empirical Studycited by 156
  2. 2019Enhanced Convolutional Neural Tangent Kernelscited by 76
  3. 2022Limitations of the NTK for Understanding Generalization in Deep Learningcited by 34

Built on by

Not cited yet.