-
Role of Locality and Weight Sharing in Image-Based Tasks: A Sample Complexity Separation between CNNs, LCNs, and FCNs
Authors:
Aakash Lahoti,
Stefani Karp,
Ezra Winston,
Aarti Singh,
Yuanzhi Li
Abstract:
Vision tasks are characterized by the properties of locality and translation invariance. The superior performance of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) on these tasks is widely attributed to the inductive bias of locality and weight sharing baked into their architecture. Existing attempts to quantify the statistical benefits of these biases in CNNs over locally connected convolutional neural net…
▽ More
Vision tasks are characterized by the properties of locality and translation invariance. The superior performance of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) on these tasks is widely attributed to the inductive bias of locality and weight sharing baked into their architecture. Existing attempts to quantify the statistical benefits of these biases in CNNs over locally connected convolutional neural networks (LCNs) and fully connected neural networks (FCNs) fall into one of the following categories: either they disregard the optimizer and only provide uniform convergence upper bounds with no separating lower bounds, or they consider simplistic tasks that do not truly mirror the locality and translation invariance as found in real-world vision tasks. To address these deficiencies, we introduce the Dynamic Signal Distribution (DSD) classification task that models an image as consisting of $k$ patches, each of dimension $d$, and the label is determined by a $d$-sparse signal vector that can freely appear in any one of the $k$ patches. On this task, for any orthogonally equivariant algorithm like gradient descent, we prove that CNNs require $\tilde{O}(k+d)$ samples, whereas LCNs require $Ω(kd)$ samples, establishing the statistical advantages of weight sharing in translation invariant tasks. Furthermore, LCNs need $\tilde{O}(k(k+d))$ samples, compared to $Ω(k^2d)$ samples for FCNs, showcasing the benefits of locality in local tasks. Additionally, we develop information theoretic tools for analyzing randomized algorithms, which may be of interest for statistical research.
△ Less
Submitted 22 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Applying statistical learning theory to deep learning
Authors:
Cédric Gerbelot,
Avetik Karagulyan,
Stefani Karp,
Kavya Ravichandran,
Menachem Stern,
Nathan Srebro
Abstract:
Although statistical learning theory provides a robust framework to understand supervised learning, many theoretical aspects of deep learning remain unclear, in particular how different architectures may lead to inductive bias when trained using gradient based methods. The goal of these lectures is to provide an overview of some of the main questions that arise when attempting to understand deep l…
▽ More
Although statistical learning theory provides a robust framework to understand supervised learning, many theoretical aspects of deep learning remain unclear, in particular how different architectures may lead to inductive bias when trained using gradient based methods. The goal of these lectures is to provide an overview of some of the main questions that arise when attempting to understand deep learning from a learning theory perspective. After a brief reminder on statistical learning theory and stochastic optimization, we discuss implicit bias in the context of benign overfitting. We then move to a general description of the mirror descent algorithm, showing how we may go back and forth between a parameter space and the corresponding function space for a given learning problem, as well as how the geometry of the learning problem may be represented by a metric tensor. Building on this framework, we provide a detailed study of the implicit bias of gradient descent on linear diagonal networks for various regression tasks, showing how the loss function, scale of parameters at initialization and depth of the network may lead to various forms of implicit bias, in particular transitioning between kernel or feature learning.
△ Less
Submitted 25 March, 2024; v1 submitted 26 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
Agnostic Learnability of Halfspaces via Logistic Loss
Authors:
Ziwei Ji,
Kwangjun Ahn,
Pranjal Awasthi,
Satyen Kale,
Stefani Karp
Abstract:
We investigate approximation guarantees provided by logistic regression for the fundamental problem of agnostic learning of homogeneous halfspaces. Previously, for a certain broad class of "well-behaved" distributions on the examples, Diakonikolas et al. (2020) proved an $\tildeΩ(\textrm{OPT})$ lower bound, while Frei et al. (2021) proved an $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{\textrm{OPT}})$ upper bound, where…
▽ More
We investigate approximation guarantees provided by logistic regression for the fundamental problem of agnostic learning of homogeneous halfspaces. Previously, for a certain broad class of "well-behaved" distributions on the examples, Diakonikolas et al. (2020) proved an $\tildeΩ(\textrm{OPT})$ lower bound, while Frei et al. (2021) proved an $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{\textrm{OPT}})$ upper bound, where $\textrm{OPT}$ denotes the best zero-one/misclassification risk of a homogeneous halfspace. In this paper, we close this gap by constructing a well-behaved distribution such that the global minimizer of the logistic risk over this distribution only achieves $Ω(\sqrt{\textrm{OPT}})$ misclassification risk, matching the upper bound in (Frei et al., 2021). On the other hand, we also show that if we impose a radial-Lipschitzness condition in addition to well-behaved-ness on the distribution, logistic regression on a ball of bounded radius reaches $\tilde{O}(\textrm{OPT})$ misclassification risk. Our techniques also show for any well-behaved distribution, regardless of radial Lipschitzness, we can overcome the $Ω(\sqrt{\textrm{OPT}})$ lower bound for logistic loss simply at the cost of one additional convex optimization step involving the hinge loss and attain $\tilde{O}(\textrm{OPT})$ misclassification risk. This two-step convex optimization algorithm is simpler than previous methods obtaining this guarantee, all of which require solving $O(\log(1/\textrm{OPT}))$ minimization problems.
△ Less
Submitted 31 January, 2022;
originally announced January 2022.
