Live data from Hacker News

Computer scientists prove why bigger neural networks do better

quantamagazine.org

121–130 of 151 posts

Re: Computer scientists prove why bigger neural networks do better

#121

Can someone ELI5 how one increases the size of an NN? If I take the handwritten digit classifier that people use as ML 101, is it just a matter of increasing the size of the hidden layers?

You can just do that by adding large hidden layers or more hidden layers, up to a point. But eventually the signal that's coming from the input data is so diluted through all the neurons and layers that your models stop performing better as you add more neurons. Many of the advances in NNs come from structuring the neurons in particular ways - for example, in computer vision, convolutional neural networks. These are kind of a small neural network that looks at each part of the image and gives an output - basically, shrinking and summarizing the image - which is then fed into another small neural network that shrinks & summarizes some more, and so on until you have only one result, like "is this a cat" or something like that. Transformers, which are mostly used for natural language processing, have small neural network layers that let the network figure out which other words in a text are relevant for understanding a given word (or, token, really). These help simplify the problem for the NN so it doesn't have to sort through all the data it has at once, which is a bottleneck on scaling NNs.

Not sure that explains it like you're 5, but hopefully it addresses your question

Re: Computer scientists prove why bigger neural networks do better

#122
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're more complex in biological construction and in signaling mechanism, but no proof that they are more complex in function.

Do you think they have accumulated complexity for no reason. Because usually evolution kicks out things that aren't needed.

For one they need to engage in metabolism and reproduction, but I'd like to see some argument of how neurons are more complex without those needs, e.g. do they compute some radically different class of functions than typical ANN's do, or require entirely different interconnections, etc.

Re: Computer scientists prove why bigger neural networks do better

#123

> Right now, we are routinely creating neural networks that have a number of parameters more than the number of training samples. This says that the books have to be rewritten. Confused by this statement. Double descent with overparameterization is exhibited in "classical settings" too and mentioned in older books. > In their new proof, the pair show that overparameterization is necessary for a network to be robust.…

Daniela Witten has a nice twitter thread on the topic of double descent in classical settings: https://twitter.com/daniela_witten/status/129229310485515878...

Re: Computer scientists prove why bigger neural networks do better

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counterpoint, rats without a cortex can do...basically everything normal rats can do--except trim their toenails. The classic reference for this is Whitslaw's 1990 chapter "The decorticate rat". This thread has links to a copy, plus a bunch of related studies in humans and animals. https://twitter.com/markdhumphries/status/107105276276554137...

Have you read the PDF given? The whole nail part is basically a single sentence in the paper. For example, decorticate rats are unable to escape narrow alleyways because they can not turn around due to their tonsils touching the walls and them being unable to ignore that feeling. Another example is that they take a few seconds vs (!) 5 minutes to groom themselves on average.

Yes! I got interested in this when my colleague worked with a person who had an entire hemisphere resected as a teenage.

FWIW, the nail thing is a bit of a neuroscience meme. I heard--and stole--this quip from multiple people in several different situations. There's also a really striking figure in that chapter (p. 7 or 8).

No argument that the rats' behaviors are affected. I suppose whether you find the slowness of their grooming expected (because of brain damage) or impressive (because it happens at all) is a matter of taste. Glass^W Skull half-empty or half-full, if you will.

Re: Computer scientists prove why bigger neural networks do better

#125
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say "plenty" - few primates, dolphins, orcas, elephants, and, strangely, magpies. But the grounds for that claim are shaky for some of them, the only 3 species we are 100% sure about are chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans. Magpies, for example, require "a training" (whatever that means).

Probably cause we've only tested a few, not that it matters though. Humans take a pretty long time to recognize themselves in the mirror. I wonder if the mirror test would change if we would expose the animals for a almost a year before doing the test, just like humans. That said even ants pass the test, i.e. they were recently(2015) tested. But the whole thing can be characterized as: "Let me make up a random test,…

> But the whole thing can be characterized as: "Let me make up a random test, according to my personal opinion of what defines cognition and then see if a random animal I choose passes it".

But of course! How do we know that humans are, indeed, the smartest? What if we've been failing every single test that mice have been throwing at us over the past millennia, and they wonder why we are so dumb?

(This is a reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in case you're wondering if I've gone mad. Not that one wouldn't presuppose the other :)

Re: Computer scientists prove why bigger neural networks do better

#126
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Volume != neurons. In any case, 75 is awful and is usually considered borderline retarded. (If you're tempted to respond with other cases of higher IQ, note that they are often retracted or unconfirmed and likely fraudulent in some way; see https://www.gwern.net/Hydrocephalus .)

As a counterpoint, rats without a cortex can do...basically everything normal rats can do--except trim their toenails. The classic reference for this is Whitslaw's 1990 chapter "The decorticate rat". This thread has links to a copy, plus a bunch of related studies in humans and animals. https://twitter.com/markdhumphries/status/107105276276554137...

Stick that rat outside in a wild rat colony, and we'll see how well "everything normal rats can do except trim their toenails" works out.

Re: Computer scientists prove why bigger neural networks do better

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read the PDF given? The whole nail part is basically a single sentence in the paper. For example, decorticate rats are unable to escape narrow alleyways because they can not turn around due to their tonsils touching the walls and them being unable to ignore that feeling. Another example is that they take a few seconds vs (!) 5 minutes to groom themselves on average.

Yes! I got interested in this when my colleague worked with a person who had an entire hemisphere resected as a teenage. FWIW, the nail thing is a bit of a neuroscience meme. I heard--and stole--this quip from multiple people in several different situations. There's also a really striking figure in that chapter (p. 7 or 8). No argument that the rats' behaviors are affected. I suppose whether you find the slowness of…

> No argument that the rats' behaviors are affected. I suppose whether you find the slowness of their grooming expected

They are not slow, they just stop grooming themselves well enough.

Re: Computer scientists prove why bigger neural networks do better

#128
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counterpoint, rats without a cortex can do...basically everything normal rats can do--except trim their toenails. The classic reference for this is Whitslaw's 1990 chapter "The decorticate rat". This thread has links to a copy, plus a bunch of related studies in humans and animals. https://twitter.com/markdhumphries/status/107105276276554137...

Stick that rat outside in a wild rat colony, and we'll see how well "everything normal rats can do except trim their toenails" works out.

The cool thing about Whitslaw's work is that it focused on natural behaviors (rather than like...a rotorod test).

I don't think he released them into the wild (would be a tough experiment with 80s tech), but there are a bunch of studies of their interactions with conspecifics. They can mate[0], though less successfully than controls, but playfight a bit better than they do[1].

[0] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1983-29790-001 [1] https://doi.org/10.1159/000114124

Re: Computer scientists prove why bigger neural networks do better

#129
Size = N x D

D is the dimensionality, and they give a picture example with D = X.pixels * Y.pixels

How does D change when you introduce video? (Picture arrays)

E.g. can a NN recognize something more by having access to an array of approximately the same image as it sweeps through space/time?

Re: Computer scientists prove why bigger neural networks do better

#130
post #8

I am surprised that the paper does not even cite the Lottery Ticket Hypothesis ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.03635 , https://eng.uber.com/deconstructing-lottery-tickets/ ). In the LTH paper (IMHO the most fundamental deep learning publication in the last few years), the number of tickets goes as layer_size^n_layers.

In the linked Uber paper, can someone explain the plots with the ellipses? It's a 2d plot of initial vs final weight, yes? But where does the ellipse shape come from and why?
Post reply on HN