Gibbs-Based Information Criteria and the Over-Parameterized Regime
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Double-descent refers to the unexpected drop in test loss of a learning algorithm beyond an interpolating threshold with over-parameterization, which is not predicted by information criteria in their classical forms due to the limitations in the standard asymptotic approach. We update these analyses using the information risk minimization framework and provide Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) for models learned by the Gibbs algorithm. Notably, the penalty terms for the Gibbs-based AIC and BIC correspond to specific information measures, i.e., symmetrized KL information and KL divergence. We extend this information-theoretic analysis to over-parameterized models by providing two different Gibbs-based BICs to compute the marginal likelihood of random feature models in the regime where the number of parameters p and the number of samples n tend to infinity, with p/n fixed. Our experiments demonstrate that the Gibbs-based BIC can select the high-dimensional model and reveal the mismatch between marginal likelihood and population risk in the over-parameterized regime, providing new insights to understand double-descent.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 34 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2023.
Builds on
34 of 66 references.
References · 34
- 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,674
- 2018Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offcited by 927
- 2017Spectrally-normalized margin bounds for neural networkscited by 686
- 2019Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurtcited by 672
- 2017Exploring Generalization in Deep Learningcited by 600
- 2019Benign Overfitting in Linear Regressioncited by 549
- 2019Surprises in High-Dimensional Ridgeless Least Squares Interpolationcited by 513
- 2019The generalization error of random features regression: Precise asymptotics and double descent curvecited by 413
- 2017Information-theoretic analysis of generalization capability of learning algorithmscited by 303
- 2017Non-convex learning via Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics: a nonasymptotic analysiscited by 243
- 2017High-dimensional dynamics of generalization error in neural networkscited by 241
- 2019Two models of double descent for weak featurescited by 195
22 more
- 2020Generalisation error in learning with random features and the hidden manifold modelcited by 127
- 2019Harmless interpolation of noisy data in regressioncited by 121
- 2018Log-concave sampling: Metropolis-Hastings algorithms are fastcited by 118
- 2020Rethinking Bias-Variance Trade-off for Generalization of Neural Networkscited by 107
- 2021Scalable Marginal Likelihood Estimation for Model Selection in Deep Learningcited by 106
- 2020Double Trouble in Double Descent : Bias and Variance(s) in the Lazy Regimecited by 95
- 2016PAC-Bayesian Theory Meets Bayesian Inferencecited by 88
- 2019A Model of Double Descent for High-dimensional Binary Linear Classificationcited by 81
- 2020Understanding Double Descent Requires a Fine-Grained Bias-Variance Decompositioncited by 76
- 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
- 2022Bayesian Model Selection, the Marginal Likelihood, and Generalizationcited by 57
- 2019A Comparative Analysis of the Optimization and Generalization Property of Two-layer Neural Network and Random Feature Models Under Gradient Descent Dynamicscited by 49
- 2020Early Stopping in Deep Networks: Double Descent and How to Eliminate itcited by 41
- 2019More Data Can Hurt for Linear Regression: Sample-wise Double Descentcited by 37
- 2020Analytic Study of Double Descent in Binary Classification: The Impact of Losscited by 28
- 2020What causes the test error? Going beyond bias-variance via ANOVAcited by 28
- 2019Nonconvex sampling with the Metropolis-adjusted Langevin algorithmcited by 15
- 2016Tuning parameter selection in high dimensional penalized likelihoodcited by 13
- 2023Convergence Rates for Non-Log-Concave Sampling and Log-Partition Estimationcited by 10
- 2022Empirical Risk Minimization with Relative Entropy Regularization: Optimality and Sensitivity Analysiscited by 8
- 2021On the Double Descent of Random Features Models Trained with SGDcited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.