ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
The classical bias-variance trade-off predicts that bias decreases and variance increase with model complexity, leading to a U-shaped risk curve. Recent work calls this into question for neural networks and other over-parameterized models, for which it is often observed that larger models generalize better. We provide a simple explanation for this by measuring the bias and variance of neural networks: while the bias is monotonically decreasing as in the classical theory, the variance is unimodal or bell-shaped: it increases then decreases with the width of the network. We vary the network architecture, loss function, and choice of dataset and confirm that variance unimodality occurs robustly for all models we considered. The risk curve is the sum of the bias and variance curves and displays different qualitative shapes depending on the relative scale of bias and variance, with the double descent curve observed in recent literature as a special case. We corroborate these empirical results with a theoretical analysis of two-layer linear networks with random first layer. Finally, evaluation on out-of-distribution data shows that most of the drop in accuracy comes from increased bias while variance increases by a relatively small amount. Moreover, we find that deeper models decrease bias and increase variance for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution data.
A common assumption in machine learning is that samples are independently and identically distributed (i.i.d). However, the contributions of different samples are not identical in training. Some samples are difficult to learn and some samples are noi
With ever-increasing computational demand for deep learning, it is critical to investigate the implications of the numeric representation and precision of DNN model weights and activations on computational efficiency. In this work, we explore unconve
The graph Laplacian regularization term is usually used in semi-supervised representation learning to provide graph structure information for a model $f(X)$. However, with the recent popularity of graph neural networks (GNNs), directly encoding graph
Adversarially trained models exhibit a large generalization gap: they can interpolate the training set even for large perturbation radii, but at the cost of large test error on clean samples. To investigate this gap, we decompose the test risk into i
Intuitively, a scientist might assume that a more complex regression model will necessarily yield a better predictive model of experimental data. Herein, we disprove this notion in the context of extracting the proton charge radius from charge form f