Theoretical Limitations of Ensembles in the Age of Overparameterization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Classic ensembles generalize better than any single component model. In contrast, recent empirical studies find that modern ensembles of (overparameterized) neural networks may not provide any inherent generalization advantage over single but larger neural networks. This paper clarifies how modern overparameterized ensembles differ from their classic underparameterized counterparts, using ensembles of random feature (RF) regressors as a basis for developing theory. In contrast to the underparameterized regime, where ensembling typically induces regularization and increases generalization, we prove with minimal assumptions that infinite ensembles of overparameterized RF regressors become pointwise equivalent to (single) infinite-width RF regressors, and finite width ensembles rapidly converge to single models with the same parameter budget. These results, which are exact for ridgeless models and approximate for small ridge penalties, imply that overparameterized ensembles and single large models exhibit nearly identical generalization. We further characterize the predictive variance amongst ensemble members, demonstrating that it quantifies the expected effects of increasing capacity rather than capturing any conventional notion of uncertainty. Our results challenge common assumptions about the advantages of ensembles in overparameterized settings, prompting a reconsideration of how well intuitions from underparameterized ensembles transfer to deep ensembles and the overparameterized regime.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 35 of its 67 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Oct 2024.
Builds on
35 of 67 references.
References · 35
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,888
- 2018Neural Tangent Kernel: Convergence and Generalization in Neural Networkscited by 2,597
- 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,335
- 2019Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shiftcited by 1,274
- 2018Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offcited by 919
- 2017Deep Bayesian Active Learning with Image Datacited by 812
- 2019Wide Neural Networks of Any Depth Evolve as Linear Models Under Gradient Descentcited by 732
- 2020MOPO: Model-based Offline Policy Optimizationcited by 630
- 2019Benign Overfitting in Linear Regressioncited by 544
- 2019Surprises in High-Dimensional Ridgeless Least Squares Interpolationcited by 508
- 2019Deep Ensembles: A Loss Landscape Perspectivecited by 438
23 more
- 2019The generalization error of random features regression: Precise asymptotics and double descent curvecited by 410
- 2018To understand deep learning we need to understand kernel learningcited by 186
- 2019Evaluating Scalable Bayesian Deep Learning Methods for Robust Computer Visioncited by 182
- 2016Generalization Properties of Learning with Random Featurescited by 163
- 2020Finite Versus Infinite Neural Networks: an Empirical Studycited by 156
- 2015Why M Heads are Better than One: Training a Diverse Ensemble of Deep Networkscited by 138
- 2020The Gaussian equivalence of generative models for learning with shallow neural networkscited by 113
- 2019Limitations of Lazy Training of Two-layers Neural Networkscited by 87
- 2020Understanding Double Descent Requires a Fine-Grained Bias-Variance Decompositioncited by 75
- 2022Universality of empirical risk minimizationcited by 73
- 2022Deep Ensembles Work, But Are They Necessary?cited by 63
- 2020Implicit Regularization of Random Feature Modelscited by 54
- 2023High-dimensional analysis of double descent for linear regression with random projectionscited by 47
- 2013Confidence Intervals for Random Forests: The Jackknife and the Infinitesimal Jackknifecited by 43
- 2022Benign, Tempered, or Catastrophic: A Taxonomy of Overfittingcited by 36
- 2021The Future is Log-Gaussian: ResNets and Their Infinite-Depth-and-Width Limit at Initializationcited by 33
- 2023Joint Training of Deep Ensembles Fails Due to Learner Collusioncited by 23
- 2021The Limitations of Large Width in Neural Networks: A Deep Gaussian Process Perspectivecited by 21
- 2023When are ensembles really effective?cited by 21
- 2022Fluctuations, Bias, Variance & Ensemble of Learners: Exact Asymptotics for Convex Losses in High-Dimensioncited by 19
- 2023More is Better in Modern Machine Learning: when Infinite Overparameterization is Optimal and Overfitting is Obligatorycited by 17
- 2023Pathologies of Predictive Diversity in Deep Ensemblescited by 16
- 2024On the Benefits of Over-parameterization for Out-of-Distribution Generalizationcited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 4.
6 papers.
- 2026Position: agentic AI orchestration should be Bayes-consistentcited by 3
- 2024No Free Lunch From Random Feature Ensembles: Scaling Laws and Near-Optimality Conditionscited by 1
- 2025Variational Deep Learning via Implicit Regularizationcited by 0
- 2026Equivariant Evidential Deep Learning for Interatomic Potentialscited by 0
- 2026Uncertainty-aware damage identification in short-span bridges via physics-informed variational autoencodercited by 0
- 2026Adversarially Robust PAC Learning with Optimal VC Ratescited by 0
- 2026Adversarially Robust PAC Learning with Optimal VC Rates21 Sep 2026
- 2026Uncertainty-aware damage identification in short-span bridges via physics-informed variational autoencoder6 Jul 2026
- 2026Position: agentic AI orchestration should be Bayes-consistent1 May 2026
- 2026Equivariant Evidential Deep Learning for Interatomic Potentials11 Feb 2026
- 2025Variational Deep Learning via Implicit Regularization26 May 2025
- 2024No Free Lunch From Random Feature Ensembles: Scaling Laws and Near-Optimality Conditions6 Dec 2024