Width-Robust Learnability in Mean-Field Bayesian Neural Networks
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Infinite-width limits are a standard way to reason about neural networks, but it is not automatic that the limiting learner has the same complexity-theoretic inductive bias as large finite networks. We study this question for Bayesian neural networks at the mean-field, or critical feature-learning, scaling. The central quantity is the reduced entropy [ s_∞(y,varepsilon)=limsupN -frac1Nlog πN0(L≤ varepsilon), ] the intensive prior cost of representing a target function y to population mean-squared error varepsilon. Our main result is a width-robust learnability theorem. At fixed depth, a family of Boolean-cube targets is learnable from polynomially many samples at infinite width if and only if it is learnable at polynomial width, if and only if its reduced entropy is polynomially bounded. Equivalently, up to polynomial slack in accuracy, the Bayesian mean-field learner generalizes exactly on the targets that can be represented by polynomial-size networks. The forward direction is proved by a form of subsampling: from the infinitely many hidden neurons in the mean-field solution, one can select polynomially many representatives and still preserve the learned function on every input simultaneously. At the critical scaling this subsampling has both an ``active'' component, which keeps the data-dependent low-dimensional statistics, and a ``lazy'' component, which resamples the entropy-dominated directions from the prior. Thus the infinite-width mean-field limit gives a clean analytic description of learning without introducing spurious width-dependent generalization power.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jul 2026.
Builds on
20 of 26 references.
References · 20
- 2018Neural Tangent Kernel: Convergence and Generalization in Neural Networkscited by 2,621
- 2017Deep Neural Networks as Gaussian Processescited by 622
- 2018A Mean Field View of the Landscape of Two-Layers Neural Networkscited by 466
- 2018On the Global Convergence of Gradient Descent for Over-parameterized Models using Optimal Transportcited by 426
- 2022Hidden Progress in Deep Learning: SGD Learns Parities Near the Computational Limitcited by 187
- 2018Mean Field Analysis of Neural Networks: A Central Limit Theoremcited by 107
- 2018Trainability and Accuracy of Neural Networks: An Interacting Particle System Approachcited by 106
- 2022Self-Consistent Dynamical Field Theory of Kernel Evolution in Wide Neural Networkscited by 105
- 2020Learning Parities with Neural Networkscited by 78
- 2020A Rigorous Framework for the Mean Field Limit of Multilayer Neural Networkscited by 68
- 2021Separation of Scales and a Thermodynamic Description of Feature Learning in Some CNNscited by 53
- 2021A self consistent theory of Gaussian Processes captures feature learning effects in finite CNNscited by 33
8 more
- 2024How Uniform Random Weights Induce Non-uniform Bias: Typical Interpolating Neural Networks Generalize with Narrow Teacherscited by 18
- 2019Generalization Bounds for Neural Networks via Approximate Description Lengthcited by 15
- 2025Adaptive kernel predictors from feature-learning infinite limits of neural networkscited by 13
- 2025From Kernels to Features: A Multi-Scale Adaptive Theory of Feature Learningcited by 10
- 2022On the Sample Complexity of Two-Layer Networks: Lipschitz vs. Element-Wise Lipschitz Activationcited by 4
- 2025Summary statistics of learning link changing neural representations to behaviorcited by 4
- 2025Mitigating the Curse of Detail: Scaling Arguments for Feature Learning and Sample Complexitycited by 4
- 2026Algorithmic Task Capture, Computational Complexity, and Inductive Bias of Infinite Transformerscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.