user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Deep Neural Networks as Gaussian Processes

Paper content:
It has long been known that a single-layer fully-connected neural network with an i.i.d.
prior over its parameters is equivalent to a Gaussian process (GP), in the limit of infinite network width.
This correspondence enables exact Bayesian inference for infinite width neural networks on regression tasks by means of evaluating the corresponding GP.
Recently, kernel functions which mimic multi-layer random neural networks have been developed, but only outside of a Bayesian framework.
As such, previous work has not identified that these kernels can be used as covariance functions for GPs and allow fully Bayesian prediction with a deep neural network.
In this work, we derive the exact equivalence between infinitely wide, deep, networks and GPs with a particular covariance function.
We further develop a computationally efficient pipeline to compute this covariance function.
We then use the resulting GP to perform Bayesian inference for deep neural networks on MNIST and CIFAR-10.
We observe that the trained neural network accuracy approaches that of the corresponding GP with increasing layer width, and that the GP uncertainty is strongly correlated with trained network prediction error.
We further find that test performance increases as finite-width trained networks are made wider and  more  similar  to  a  GP,  and  that  the  GP-based  predictions  typically  outperform  those  of  finite-width  networks.
Finally  we  connect  the  prior  distribution over weights and variances in our GP formulation to the recent development of signal propagation in random neural networks.
Deep neural networks have emerged in recent years as flexible parametric models which can fit complex patterns in data.
As a contrasting approach, Gaussian processes have long served as a traditional nonparametric tool for modeling.
An equivalence between these two approaches was derived in BID17 , for the case of one layer networks in the limit of infinite width.
Neal (1994a) further suggested that a similar correspondence might hold for deeper networks.Consider a deep fully-connected neural network with i.i.d. random parameters.
Each scalar output of the network, an affine transformation of the final hidden layer, will be a sum of i.i.d. terms.
As we will discuss in detail below, in the limit of infinite width the Central Limit Theorem 1 implies that the function computed by the neural network (NN) is a function drawn from a Gaussian process (GP).
In the case of single hidden-layer networks, the form of the kernel of this GP is well known BID17 BID25 ).This
correspondence implies that if we choose the hypothesis space to be the class of infinitely wide neural networks, an i.i.d. prior over weights and biases can be replaced with a corresponding GP prior over functions. As noted
by BID25 , this substitution enables exact Bayesian inference for regression using neural networks. The computation
requires building the necessary covariance matrices over the training and test sets and straightforward linear algebra computations.In light of the resurgence in popularity of neural networks, it is timely to revisit this line of work. We delineate the
correspondence between deep and wide neural networks and GPs and utilize it for Bayesian training of neural networks on regression tasks.
By harnessing the limit of infinite width, we have specified a correspondence between priors on deep neural networks and Gaussian processes whose kernel function is constructed in a compositional, but fully deterministic and differentiable, manner.
Use of a GP prior on functions enables exact Bayesian inference for regression from matrix computations, and hence we are able to obtain predictions and uncertainty estimates from deep neural networks without stochastic gradient-based training.
The performance is competitive with the best neural networks (within specified class of fully-connected models) trained on the same regression task under similar hyperparameter settings.
While we were able to run experiments for somewhat large datasets (sizes of 50k), we intend to look into scalability for larger learning tasks, possibly harnessing recent progress in scalable GPs BID20 ; BID12 ).
In our experiments, we observed the performance of the optimized neural network appears to approach that of the GP computation with increasing width.
Whether gradient-based stochastic optimization implements an approximate Bayesian computation is an interesting question BID16 .
Further investigation is needed to determine if SGD does approximately implement Bayesian inference under the conditions typically employed in practice.Additionally, the NNGP provides explicit estimates of uncertainty.
This may be useful in predicting model failure in critical applications of deep learning, or for active learning tasks where it can be used to identify the best datapoints to hand label.A DRAWS FROM AN NNGP PRIOR FIG5 illustrates the nature of the GP prior for the ReLU nonlinearity by depicting samples of 1D functions z(x) drawn from a ReLU GP, GP(0, K L ), with fixed depth L = 10 and (σ Figure 6: The angular structure of the kernel and its evolution with depth.
Also illustrated is the good agreement between the kernel computed using the methods of Section 2.5 (blue, starred) and the analytic form of the kernel (red).
The depth l in K l runs from l = 0, ..., 9 (flattened curves for increasing l), and (σ In the main text, we noted that the recurrence relation Equation 5 can be computed analytically for certain nonlinearities.
In particular, this was computed in BID2 for polynomial rectified nonlinearities.
For ReLU, the result including the weight and bias variance is DISPLAYFORM0 To illustrate the angular form of K l (x, x ) and its evolution with l, in Figure 6 we plot K l (θ) for the ReLU nonlinearity, where θ is the angle between x and x with norms such that ||x|| 2 = ||x || 2 = d in .
We observe a flattening of the angular structure with increase in depth l, as predicted from the understanding in Section 3.2.
Simultaneously, the figure also illustrates the good agreement between the kernel computed using the numerical implementation of Section 2.5 (blue, starred) and the analytic arccosine kernel, Equation 11 (red), for a particular choice of hyperparameters (σ

assistant: text: We show how to make predictions using deep networks, without training deep networks.