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

Title: Measuring and regularizing networks in function space

Paper content:
To optimize a neural network one often thinks of optimizing its parameters, but it is ultimately a matter of optimizing the function that maps inputs to outputs.
Since a change in the parameters might serve as a poor proxy for the change in the function, it is of some concern that primacy is given to parameters but that the correspondence has not been tested.
Here, we show that it is simple and computationally feasible to calculate distances between functions in a $L^2$ Hilbert space.
We examine how typical networks behave in this space, and compare how parameter $\ell^2$ distances compare to function $L^2$ distances between various points of an optimization trajectory.
We find that the two distances are nontrivially related.
In particular, the $L^2/\ell^2$ ratio decreases throughout optimization, reaching a steady value around when test error plateaus.
We then investigate how the $L^2$ distance could be applied directly to optimization.
We first propose that in multitask learning, one can avoid catastrophic forgetting by directly limiting how much the input/output function changes between tasks.
Secondly, we propose a new learning rule that constrains the distance a network can travel through $L^2$-space in any one update.
This allows new examples to be learned in a way that minimally interferes with what has previously been learned.
These applications demonstrate how one can measure and regularize function distances directly, without relying on parameters or local approximations like loss curvature.
A neural network's parameters collectively encode a function that maps inputs to outputs.
The goal of learning is to converge upon a good input/output function.
In analysis, then, a researcher should ideally consider how a network's input/output function changes relative to the space of possible functions.
However, since this space is not often considered tractable, most techniques and analyses consider the parameters of neural networks.
Most regularization techniques, for example, act directly on the parameters (e.g. weight decay, or the implicit constraints stochastic gradient descent (SGD) places upon movement).
These techniques are valuable to the extent that parameter space can be taken as a proxy for function space.
Since the two might not always be easily related, and since we ultimately care most about the input/output function, it is important to develop metrics that are directly applicable in function space.In this work we show that it is relatively straightforward to measure the distance between two networks in function space, at least if one chooses the right space.
Here we examine L 2 -space, which is a Hilbert space.
Distance in L 2 space is simply the expected 2 distance between the outputs of two functions when given the same inputs.
This computation relies only on function inference.Using this idea of function space, we first focus on characterizing how networks move in function space during optimization with SGD.
Do random initializations track similar trajectories?
What happens in the overfitting regime?
We are particularly interested in the relationship between trajectories in function space and parameter space.
If the two are tightly coupled, then parameter change can be taken as a proxy for function change.
This common assumption (e.g. Lipschitz bounds) might not always be the case.Next, we demonstrate two possibilities as to how a function space metric could assist optimization.
In the first setting we consider multitask learning, and the phenomenon of catastrophic forgetting that makes it difficult.
Many well-known methods prevent forgetting by regularizing how much the parameters are allowed to shift due to retraining (usually scaled by a precision matrix calculated on previous tasks).
We show that one can instead directly regularize changes in the input/output function of early tasks.
Though this requires a "working memory" of earlier examples, this scheme turns out to be quite data-efficient (and more so than actually retraining on examples from old tasks).In
the second setting we propose a learning rule for supervised learning that constrains how much a network's function can change any one update. This
rule, which we call Hilbert-constrained gradient descent (HCGD), penalizes each step of SGD to reduce the magnitude of the resulting step in L 2 -space. This
learning rule thus changes the course of learning to track a shorter path in function space. If SGD
generalizes in part because large changes to the function are prohibited, then this rule will have advantages over SGD. Interestingly
, HCGD is conceptually related to the natural gradient. As we derive
in §3.2.1, the natural gradient can be viewed as resulting from constrains changes in a function space measured by the Kullbeck-Leibler divergence.
Neural networks encode functions, and it is important that analyses discuss the empirical relationship between function space and the more direct parameter space.
Here, we argued that the L 2 Hilbert space defined over an input distribution is a tractable and useful space for analysis.
We found that networks traverse this function space qualitatively differently than they do parameter space.
Depending on the situation, a distance of parameters cannot be taken to represent a proportional distance between functions.We proposed two possibilities for how the L 2 distance could be used directly in applications.
The first addresses multitask learning.
By remembering enough examples in a working memory to accurately Figure 6 : Results of a singlelayer LSTM with 128 hidden units trained on the sequential MNIST task with permuted pixels.
Shown are the traces for SGD and Adam (both with learning rate 0.01).
We then take variants of the HCGD algorithm in which the first proposed step is taken to be an SGD step (SGD+HC) or an Adam step (Adam+HC).
For SGD+HC we also show the effect of introducing more iterations n in the SGD+HC step.estimate an L 2 distance, we can ensure that the function (as defined on old tasks) does not change as a new task is learned.
This regularization term is agnostic to the architecture or parameterization of the network.
We found that this scheme outperforms simply retraining on the same number of stored examples.
For large networks with millions of parameters, this approach may be more appealing than comparable methods like EWC and SI, which require storing large diagonal matrices.We also proposed a learning rule that reduces movement in function space during single-task optimization.
Hilbert-constrained gradient descent (HCGD) constrains the change in L 2 space between successive updates.
This approach limits the movement of the encoded function in a similar way as gradient descent limits movement of the parameters.
It also carries a similar intuition as the forgetting application: to learn from current examples only in ways that will not affect what has already been learned from other examples.
HCGD can increase test performance at image classification in recurrent situations, indicating both that the locality of function movement is important to SGD and that it can be improved upon.
However, HCGD did not always improve results, indicating either that SGD is stable in those regimes or that other principles are more important to generalization.
This is by no means the only possibility for using an L 2 norm to improve optimization.
It may be possible, for example, to use the norm to regularize the confidence of the output function (e.g. BID18 ).
We are particularly interested in exploring if more implicit, architectural methods, like normalization layers, could be designed with the L 2 norm in mind.It interesting to ask if there is support in neuroscience for learning rules that diminish the size of changes when that change would have a large effect on other tasks.
One otherwise perplexing finding is that behavioral learning rates in motor tasks are dependent on the direction of an error but independent of the magnitude of that error BID4 .
This result is not expected by most models of gradient descent, but would be expected if the size of the change in the output distribution (i.e. behavior) were regulated to be constant.
Regularization upon behavioral change (rather than synaptic change) would predict that neurons central to many actions, like neurons in motor pools of the spinal cord, would learn very slowly after early development, despite the fact that their gradient to the error on any one task (if indeed it is calculated) is likely to be quite large.
Given our general resistance to overfitting during learning, and the great variety of roles of neurons, it is likely that some type of regularization of behavioral and perceptual change is at play.
Figure A.5: Same as above, but for a network trained without Batch Normalization and also without weight decay.
Weight decay has a strong effect.
The main effect is that decreases the 2 distance traveled at all three scales (from last update, last epoch, and initialization), especially at late optimization.
This explains the left column, and some of the middle and right columns.
(It is helpful to look at the "white point" on the color scale, which indicates the point halfway through training. Note that parameter distances continue to change after the white point when WD is not used).
An additional and counterintuitive property is that the L 2 distance from the last epoch increases in scale during optimization when WD is not used, but decreases if it is.
These comparisons show that WD has a strong effect on the L 2 / 2 ratio, but that this ratio still changes considerable throughout training.
This is in line with this paper's motivation to consider L 2 distances directly.
Figure B .6: Here we reproduce the results of FIG0 and FIG4 for the MNIST task, again using a CNN with batch normalization trained with SGD with momentum.
It can be seen first that the majority of function space movement occurs very early in optimization, mostly within the first epoch.

assistant: text: We find movement in function space is not proportional to movement in parameter space during optimization. We propose a new natural-gradient style optimizer to address this.