Live data from Hacker News

Wide Neural Networks of Any Architecture Are Gaussian Processes

arxiv.org

1–10 of 36 posts

Re: Wide Neural Networks of Any Architecture Are Gaussian Processes

#2
Without reading the paper I bet it comes down to the central limit theorem, which itself comes down to the fact that 3rd order and higher terms don't matter asymptotically. The question is always when do you start appreciably approaching the asymptote (answer: we often have no idea).

edit: re higher order terms i'm talking about the proof of the classic clt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem#Proof_of...

theres a taylor series expansion of the characteristic of the centered rv that's truncated to second order.

Re: Wide Neural Networks of Any Architecture Are Gaussian Processes

#4

Without reading the paper I bet it comes down to the central limit theorem, which itself comes down to the fact that 3rd order and higher terms don't matter asymptotically. The question is always when do you start appreciably approaching the asymptote (answer: we often have no idea). edit: re higher order terms i'm talking about the proof of the classic clt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem#Proof_of…

You're right about the central limit theorem appearing, but series expansions didn't appear; instead it is the fact that the weights are initialized to random values that seems to carry the day.

I couldn't find any mention about a trained NN, this is strictly about the initial state. Yang does reference a few papers that supposedly leverage the GP correspondence to gain some insight about how to better initialize a NN, for example this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.01719

Re: Wide Neural Networks of Any Architecture Are Gaussian Processes

#5

Without reading the paper I bet it comes down to the central limit theorem, which itself comes down to the fact that 3rd order and higher terms don't matter asymptotically. The question is always when do you start appreciably approaching the asymptote (answer: we often have no idea). edit: re higher order terms i'm talking about the proof of the classic clt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem#Proof_of…

A good paper mentioned in the sources is "Neural Tangent Kernel: Convergence and Generalization in Neural Networks".

> At initialization, artificial neural networks (ANNs) are equivalent to Gaussian processes in the infinite-width limit, thus connecting them to kernel methods.

I'm not familiar with ignoring higher order terms, besides approximations and bounds like Chebyshev's inequality and Chernoffs.

Re: Wide Neural Networks of Any Architecture Are Gaussian Processes

#6
This sounds important and interesting but isn't wide the key word here?

They talk about shallow NNs and deep fully connected NNs but that would seem to leave out a lot.

I mean, the article puts forward a distinct language/model to expression neural nets in, which is cool but are they talking about all or most of the NNs you see today? If so, huge but still.

Fo-get-a-bout-it, see SiempreViernes' comment: "I couldn't find any mention about a trained NN, this is strictly about the initial state. "(emphasis added)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21653516

Re: Wide Neural Networks of Any Architecture Are Gaussian Processes

#7

This sounds important and interesting but isn't wide the key word here? They talk about shallow NNs and deep fully connected NNs but that would seem to leave out a lot. I mean, the article puts forward a distinct language/model to expression neural nets in, which is cool but are they talking about all or most of the NNs you see today? If so, huge but still. Fo-get-a-bout-it, see SiempreViernes' comment: "I couldn't f…

Hi, the author here. Thanks for your interest! Let me try answering some of your questions.

> This sounds important and interesting but isn't wide the key word here?

Yes, width is very important for this result. Given the size of modern deep neural networks, I (and most people in the deep learning theory community, by now) believe the large width regime is the appropriate regime to study neural networks.

> I mean, the article puts forward a distinct language/model to expression neural nets in, which is cool but are they talking about all or most of the NNs you see today?

Try throw me an architecture and watch if I can't throw you back a GP :)

> Fo-get-a-bout-it, see SiempreViernes' comment: "I couldn't find any mention about a trained NN, this is strictly about the initial state. "(emphasis added)

Yes. I will have things to say about training, but that requires building up some theory. This paper is the first step in laying it out. Stay tuned! :)

Re: Wide Neural Networks of Any Architecture Are Gaussian Processes

#8

Without reading the paper I bet it comes down to the central limit theorem, which itself comes down to the fact that 3rd order and higher terms don't matter asymptotically. The question is always when do you start appreciably approaching the asymptote (answer: we often have no idea). edit: re higher order terms i'm talking about the proof of the classic clt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem#Proof_of…

Hi, author here. Thanks for your interest!

The CLT would be a good guess at approaching this problem, and indeed it is the approach of prior works [1][2]. But in this paper, the key answer is actually law of large numbers, though CLT would feature more prominently if we allow weights to be sampled from a non-Gaussian distribution.

The TLDR proof goes like this: via some recursive application of law of large numbers, we show that the kernel (i.e. Gram matrix) of the final layer embeddings of a set of inputs will converge to a deterministic kernel. Then because the last layer weights are Gaussian, the convergence of the kernel implies convergence of the output distribution to a Gaussian.

99% of the proof is on how to recursively apply the law of large numbers. This uses a technique called Gaussian conditioning, which, as its name suggests, is only applicable because the distribution of weights is Gaussian.

> The question is always when do you start appreciably approaching the asymptote (answer: we often have no idea)

Check out the github repo [3] attached to this paper and look at plot (E) in the README. It shows the empirical rate of convergence for different architectures, but in general the Frobenius norm of the deviation from limit decays like 1/sqrt(width).

[1] Deep Neural Networks as Gaussian Processes. https://openreview.net/forum?id=B1EA-M-0Z

[2] Gaussian Process Behaviour in Wide Deep Neural Networks. https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1-nGgWC-

[3] https://github.com/thegregyang/GP4A

Re: Wide Neural Networks of Any Architecture Are Gaussian Processes

#9

Without reading the paper I bet it comes down to the central limit theorem, which itself comes down to the fact that 3rd order and higher terms don't matter asymptotically. The question is always when do you start appreciably approaching the asymptote (answer: we often have no idea). edit: re higher order terms i'm talking about the proof of the classic clt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem#Proof_of…

You're right about the central limit theorem appearing, but series expansions didn't appear; instead it is the fact that the weights are initialized to random values that seems to carry the day. I couldn't find any mention about a trained NN, this is strictly about the initial state. Yang does reference a few papers that supposedly leverage the GP correspondence to gain some insight about how to better initialize a N…

Yes. I will have things to say about training, but that requires building up some theoretical foundations. This paper is the first step in laying it out. Stay tuned! :)

Re: Wide Neural Networks of Any Architecture Are Gaussian Processes

#10
post #7

This sounds important and interesting but isn't wide the key word here? They talk about shallow NNs and deep fully connected NNs but that would seem to leave out a lot. I mean, the article puts forward a distinct language/model to expression neural nets in, which is cool but are they talking about all or most of the NNs you see today? If so, huge but still. Fo-get-a-bout-it, see SiempreViernes' comment: "I couldn't f…

Hi, the author here. Thanks for your interest! Let me try answering some of your questions. > This sounds important and interesting but isn't wide the key word here? Yes, width is very important for this result. Given the size of modern deep neural networks, I (and most people in the deep learning theory community, by now) believe the large width regime is the appropriate regime to study neural networks. > I mean, th…

Looking forward to your further results
Post reply on HN