mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Implicit bias produces neural scaling laws in learning curves, from perceptrons to deep networks

arXiv 2505.13230 ↗First posted 19 May 2025cs.LG cond-mat.dis-nn stat.MLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Scaling laws in deep learning -- empirical power-law relationships linking model performance to resource growth -- have emerged as simple yet striking regularities across architectures, datasets, and tasks. These laws are particularly impactful in guiding the design of state-of-the-art models, since they quantify the benefits of increasing data or model size, and hint at the foundations of interpretability in machine learning. However, most studies focus on asymptotic behavior at the end of training. In this work, we describe a richer picture by analyzing the entire training dynamics: we identify two novel textitdynamical scaling laws that govern how performance evolves as function of different norm-based complexity measures. Combined, our new laws recover the well-known scaling for test error at convergence. Our findings are consistent across CNNs, ResNets, and Vision Transformers trained on MNIST, CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. Furthermore, we provide analytical support using a single-layer perceptron trained with logistic loss, where we derive the new dynamical scaling laws, and we explain them through the implicit bias induced by gradient-based training.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 May 2025.

Builds on

27 of 46 references.

References · 27

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  3. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  4. 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
  5. 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,512
  6. 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,674
  7. 2017Revisiting Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data in Deep Learning Eracited by 919
  8. 2017Spectrally-normalized margin bounds for neural networkscited by 686
  9. 2017The Implicit Bias of Gradient Descent on Separable Datacited by 655
  10. 2017Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empiricallycited by 582
  11. 2023Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage?cited by 523
  12. 2020Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modelingcited by 522
15 more
  1. 2019Fantastic Generalization Measures and Where to Find Themcited by 513
  2. 2014In Search of the Real Inductive Bias: On the Role of Implicit Regularization in Deep Learningcited by 342
  3. 2017Implicit Regularization in Matrix Factorizationcited by 322
  4. 2019Gradient Descent Maximizes the Margin of Homogeneous Neural Networkscited by 320
  5. 2020Implicit Bias of Gradient Descent for Wide Two-layer Neural Networks Trained with the Logistic Losscited by 268
  6. 2019A Constructive Prediction of the Generalization Error Across Scalescited by 210
  7. 2024A Dynamical Model of Neural Scaling Lawscited by 111
  8. 2022Broken Neural Scaling Lawscited by 109
  9. 2020Generalization error in high-dimensional perceptrons: Approaching Bayes error with convex optimizationcited by 51
  10. 2025(Mis)Fitting: A Survey of Scaling Lawscited by 26
  11. 2025Dynamical Decoupling of Generalization and Overfitting in Large Two-Layer Networkscited by 25
  12. 2023Escaping mediocrity: how two-layer networks learn hard generalized linear models with SGDcited by 15
  13. 2021Tractability from overparametrization: The example of the negative perceptroncited by 12
  14. 2025Benefits of Early Stopping in Gradient Descent for Overparameterized Logistic Regressioncited by 9
  15. 2024Unified Neural Network Scaling Laws and Scale-time Equivalencecited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

2 papers.