eGAD! double descent is explained by Generalized Aliasing Decomposition
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A central problem in data science is to use potentially noisy samples of an unknown function to predict values for unseen inputs. In classical statistics, predictive error is understood as a trade-off between the bias and the variance that balances model simplicity with its ability to fit complex functions. However, over-parameterized models exhibit counterintuitive behaviors, such as "double descent" in which models of increasing complexity exhibit decreasing generalization error. Others may exhibit more complicated patterns of predictive error with multiple peaks and valleys. Neither double descent nor multiple descent phenomena are well explained by the bias-variance decomposition. We introduce a novel decomposition that we call the generalized aliasing decomposition (GAD) to explain the relationship between predictive performance and model complexity. The GAD decomposes the predictive error into three parts: 1) model insufficiency, which dominates when the number of parameters is much smaller than the number of data points, 2) data insufficiency, which dominates when the number of parameters is much greater than the number of data points, and 3) generalized aliasing, which dominates between these two extremes. We demonstrate the applicability of the GAD to diverse applications, including random feature models from machine learning, Fourier transforms from signal processing, solution methods for differential equations, and predictive formation enthalpy in materials discovery. Because key components of the GAD can be explicitly calculated from the relationship between model class and samples without seeing any data labels, it can answer questions related to experimental design and model selection before collecting data or performing experiments. We further demonstrate this approach on several examples and discuss implications for predictive modeling and data science.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Aug 2024.
Builds on
17 of 70 references.
References · 17
- 2018Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offcited by 919
- 2019Wide Neural Networks of Any Depth Evolve as Linear Models Under Gradient Descentcited by 732
- 2019Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurtcited by 667
- 2019Surprises in High-Dimensional Ridgeless Least Squares Interpolationcited by 508
- 2019The generalization error of random features regression: Precise asymptotics and double descent curvecited by 410
- 2020Optimal Regularization Can Mitigate Double Descentcited by 107
- 2020Double Trouble in Double Descent : Bias and Variance(s) in the Lazy Regimecited by 95
- 2020Understanding Double Descent Requires a Fine-Grained Bias-Variance Decompositioncited by 75
- 2018A Modern Take on the Bias-Variance Tradeoff in Neural Networkscited by 64
- 2021A Farewell to the Bias-Variance Tradeoff? An Overview of the Theory of Overparameterized Machine Learningcited by 54
- 2020A Brief Prehistory of Double Descentcited by 44
- 2020Multiple Descent: Design Your Own Generalization Curvecited by 44
5 more
- 2023Double Descent Demystified: Identifying, Interpreting & Ablating the Sources of a Deep Learning Puzzlecited by 36
- 2022Regularization-wise double descent: Why it occurs and how to eliminate itcited by 9
- 2017Maximizing the information learned from finite data selects a simple modelcited by 5
- 2022VC Theoretical Explanation of Double Descentcited by 4
- 2024Understanding the Double Descent Phenomenon in Deep Learningcited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.