Keywords: Deep learning theory, NTK, generalization, inductive bias, linearized networks, neural tangent kernel
TL;DR: We discover that neural networks do not always perform better than their kernel approximations, and reveal that the performance gap heavily depends on architecture, dataset size and training task.
Abstract: For certain infinitely-wide neural networks, the neural tangent kernel (NTK) theory fully characterizes generalization, but for the networks used in practice, the empirical NTK only provides a rough first-order approximation. Still, a growing body of work keeps leveraging this approximation to successfully analyze important deep learning phenomena and design algorithms for new applications. In our work, we provide strong empirical evidence to determine the practical validity of such approximation by conducting a systematic comparison of the behavior of different neural networks and their linear approximations on different tasks. We show that the linear approximations can indeed rank the learning complexity of certain tasks for neural networks, even when they achieve very different performances. However, in contrast to what was previously reported, we discover that neural networks do not always perform better than their kernel approximations, and reveal that the performance gap heavily depends on architecture, dataset size and training task. We discover that networks overfit to these tasks mostly due to the evolution of their kernel during training, thus, revealing a new type of implicit bias.
Supplementary Material: pdf
Code Of Conduct: I certify that all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the NeurIPS Statement on Ethics, Fairness, Inclusivity, and Code of Conduct.
Community Implementations: [![CatalyzeX](/images/catalyzex_icon.svg) 1 code implementation](https://www.catalyzex.com/paper/arxiv:2106.06770/code)