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

Title: Traditional and Heavy Tailed Self Regularization in Neural Network Models

Paper content:
Random Matrix Theory (RMT) is applied to analyze the weight matrices of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), including both production quality, pre-trained models such as AlexNet and Inception, and smaller models trained from scratch, such as LeNet5 and a miniature-AlexNet.
Empirical and theoretical results clearly indicate that the empirical spectral density (ESD) of DNN layer matrices displays signatures of traditionally-regularized statistical models, even in the absence of exogenously specifying traditional forms of regularization, such as Dropout or Weight Norm constraints.
Building on recent results in RMT, most notably its extension to Universality classes of Heavy-Tailed matrices, we develop a theory to identify 5+1 Phases of Training, corresponding to increasing amounts of Implicit Self-Regularization.
For smaller and/or older DNNs, this Implicit Self-Regularization is like traditional Tikhonov regularization, in that there is a "size scale" separating signal from noise.
For state-of-the-art DNNs, however, we identify a novel form of Heavy-Tailed Self-Regularization, similar to the self-organization seen in the statistical physics of disordered systems.
This implicit Self-Regularization can depend strongly on the many knobs of the training process.
By exploiting the generalization gap phenomena, we demonstrate that we can cause a small model to exhibit all 5+1 phases of training simply by changing the batch size.
The inability of optimization and learning theory to explain and predict the properties of NNs is not a new phenomenon.
From the earliest days of DNNs, it was suspected that VC theory did not apply to these systems (1) .
It was originally assumed that local minima in the energy/loss surface were responsible for the inability of VC theory to describe NNs (1) , and that the mechanism for this was that getting trapped in local minima during training limited the number of possible functions realizable by the network.
However, it was very soon realized that the presence of local minima in the energy function was not a problem in practice (2; 3).
Thus, another reason for the inapplicability of VC theory was needed.
At the time, there did exist other theories of generalization based on statistical mechanics (4; 5; 6; 7), but for various technical and nontechnical reasons these fell out of favor in the ML/NN communities.
Instead, VC theory and related techniques continued to remain popular, in spite of their obvious problems.More recently, theoretical results of Choromanska et al. (8) (which are related to (4; 5; 6; 7)) suggested that the Energy/optimization Landscape of modern DNNs resembles the Energy Landscape of a zero-temperature Gaussian Spin Glass; and empirical results of Zhang et al. (9) have again pointed out that VC theory does not describe the properties of DNNs.
Martin and Mahoney then suggested that the Spin Glass analogy may be useful to understand severe overtraining versus the inability to overtrain in modern DNNs (10) .We
should note that it is not even clear how to define DNN regularization. The
challenge in applying these well-known ideas to DNNs is that DNNs have many adjustable "knobs and switches," independent of the Energy Landscape itself, most of which can affect training accuracy, in addition to many model parameters. Indeed
, nearly anything that improves generalization is called regularization (11) . Evaluating
and comparing these methods is challenging, in part since there are so many, and in part since they are often constrained by systems or other not-traditionally-ML considerations.Motivated by this situation, we are interested here in two related questions.• Theoretical
Question. Why is regularization
in deep learning seemingly quite different than regularization in other areas on ML; and what is the right theoretical framework with which to investigate regularization for DNNs? • Practical Question.
How can one control and
adjust, in a theoretically-principled way, the many knobs and switches that exist in modern DNN systems, e.g., to train these models efficiently and effectively, to monitor their effects on the global Energy Landscape, etc.? That is, we seek a Practical
Theory of Deep Learning, one that is prescriptive and not just descriptive. This theory would provide useful
tools for practitioners wanting to know How to characterize and control the Energy Landscape to engineer larger and betters DNNs; and it would also provide theoretical answers to broad open questions as Why Deep Learning even works. Main Empirical Results. Our main
empirical results consist
in evaluating empirically the ESDs (and related RMT-based statistics) for weight matrices for a suite of DNN models, thereby probing the Energy Landscapes of these DNNs. For older and/or smaller models, these
results are consistent with implicit Self-Regularization that is Tikhonov-like; and for modern state-of-the-art models, these results suggest novel forms of Heavy-Tailed Self-Regularization.• Self-Regularization in old/small models
. The ESDs of older/smaller DNN models (like
LeNet5 and a toy MLP3 model) exhibit weak Self-Regularization, well-modeled by a perturbative variant of MP theory, the Spiked-Covariance model. Here, a small number of eigenvalues pull out
from the random bulk, and thus the MP Soft Rank and Stable Rank both decrease. This weak form of Self-Regularization is like
Tikhonov regularization, in that there is a "size scale" that cleanly separates "signal" from "noise," but it is different than explicit Tikhonov regularization in that it arises implicitly due to the DNN training process itself.• Heavy-Tailed Self-Regularization. The ESDs of
larger, modern DNN models (including
AlexNet and Inception and nearly every other large-scale model we have examined) deviate strongly from the common Gaussian-based MP model. Instead, they appear to lie in one of the very different
Universality classes of Heavy-Tailed random matrix models. We call this HeavyTailed Self-Regularization. The ESD appears
Heavy-Tailed, but with finite support. In this
case, there is not a "size scale" (even in the theory)
that cleanly separates "signal" from "noise." Main Theoretical Results. Our main theoretical results consist
in an operational theory
for DNN Self-Regularization. Our theory uses ideas from RMT-both vanilla MP-based RMT as well
as extensions to other Universality classes based on Heavy-Tailed distributions-to provide a visual taxonomy for 5 + 1 Phases of Training, corresponding to increasing amounts of Self-Regularization.• Modeling Noise and Signal. We assume that a weight matrix W can
be modeled as W W rand + ∆ sig
, where W rand is "noise" and where ∆ sig is "signal." For small to medium sized signal, W is well-approximated by an MP distribution-with
elements drawn from the Gaussian Universality class-perhaps after removing a few eigenvectors. For large and strongly-correlated signal, W rand gets progressively smaller, but we
can model the non-random strongly-correlated signal ∆ sig by a Heavy-Tailed random matrix, i.e., a random matrix with elements drawn from a Heavy-Tailed (rather than Gaussian) Universality class.• 5+1 Phases of Regularization. Based on this, we construct a practical, visual taxonomy
for 5+1 Phases of Training. Each
phase is characterized by stronger, visually distinct signatures in the ESD of DNN weight
matrices, and successive phases correspond to decreasing MP Soft Rank and increasing amounts of Self-Regularization. The 5+1 phases are: RANDOM-LIKE, BLEEDING-OUT, BULK+SPIKES, BULK-DECAY, HEAVY-TAILED, and RANK-COLLAPSE
. Based on these results, we speculate that all well optimized, large DNNs will display Heavy-Tailed Self-Regularization
in their weight matrices. Evaluating the Theory. We provide a detailed evaluation of our theory using a smaller MiniAlexNew model that we can train
and retrain.• Effect of
Explicit Regularization. We analyze ESDs of MiniAlexNet by removing all explicit regularization (Dropout, Weight
Norm constraints, Batch Normalization
, etc.) and characterizing how the ESD of weight matrices behave during and at the end of Backprop training, as we systematically add back in different forms of explicit regularization.• Exhibiting the 5+1 Phases. We demonstrate that we can exhibit all 5+1 phases by appropriate modification of the various knobs
of the training process. In
particular, by decreasing the batch size from 500 to 2, we can make the ESDs of the fully-connected layers of MiniAlexNet vary
continuously from RANDOM-LIKE to HEAVY-TAILED, while increasing generalization accuracy along the way. These results illustrate the Generalization Gap pheneomena (12; 13; 14) , and they explain that pheneomena as being caused by the
implicit Self-Regularization associated with models trained with smaller and smaller batch sizes.
Clearly, our theory opens the door to address numerous very practical questions.
One of the most obvious is whether our RMT-based theory is applicable to other types of layers such as convolutional layers.
Initial results suggest yes, but the situation is more complex than the relatively simple picture we have described here.
These and related directions are promising avenues to explore.
This results from correlations arising at all size scales, which for DNNs arises implicitly due to the training process itself.
This implicit Self-Regularization can depend strongly on the many knobs of the training process.
In particular, by exploiting the generalization gap phenomena, we demonstrate that we can cause a small model to exhibit all 5+1 phases of training simply by changing the batch size.
This demonstrates that-all else being equal-DNN optimization with larger batch sizes leads to less-well implicitly-regularized models, and it provides an explanation for the generalization gap phenomena.
Our results suggest that large, welltrained DNN architectures should exhibit Heavy-Tailed Self-Regularization, and we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this.
Very large very deep neural networks (DNNs) have received attention as a general purpose tool for solving problems in machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI), and they perform remarkably well on a wide range of traditionally hard if not impossible problems, such as speech recognition, computer vision, and natural language processing.
The conventional wisdom seems to be "the bigger the better," "the deeper the better," and "the more hyper-parameters the better."
Unfortunately, this usual modus operandi leads to large, complicated models that are extremely hard to train, that are extremely sensitive to the parameters settings, and that are extremely difficult to understand, reason about, and interpret.
Relatedly, these models seem to violate what one would expect from the large body of theoretical work that is currently popular in ML, optimization, statistics, and related areas.
This leads to theoretical results that fail to provide guidance to practice as well as to confusing and conflicting interpretations of empirical results.
For example, current optimization theory fails to explain phenomena like the so-called Generalization Gap-the curious observation that DNNs generalize better when trained with smaller batches sizes-and it often does not provide even qualitative guidance as to how stochastic algorithms perform on non-convex landscapes of interest; and current statistical learning theory, e.g., VC-based methods, fails to provide even qualitative guidance as to the behavior of this class of learning methods that seems to have next to unlimited capacity and yet generalize without overtraining.
There is a large body of related work, much of which either informed our approach or should be informed by our results.
This includes: work on large-batch learning and the generalization gap BID195 BID119 BID111 BID104 BID114 BID178 BID113 BID193 BID141 BID198 BID199 ; work on Energy Landscape approaches to NN training BID117 BID196 44, BID170 30, 29, 27, BID112 47, 12, BID151 BID197 BID97 BID130 BID129 BID142 ; work on using weight matrices or properties of weight matrices [15, BID149 BID150 4, 14, BID200 BID148 3, BID133 BID145 ; work on different Heavy-Tailed Universality classes [46, 32, 18, 25, 20, 5, BID158 7, 38, 17, BID137 8, BID146 ; other work on RMT approaches BID180 BID167 BID161 BID159 BID134 BID134 BID184 BID132 BID173 ; other work on statistical physics approaches BID179 BID99 BID164 BID172 BID184 BID166 BID160 ; work on fitting to noisy versus reliable signal BID183 BID203 BID122 BID169 6] ; and several other related lines of work BID110 BID143 BID163 34, 1, BID153 BID154 BID144 BID131 .
We conclude by discussing several aspects of our results in this broader context.

assistant: text: See the abstract.  (For the revision, the paper is identical, except for a 59 page Supplementary Material, which can serve as a stand-along technical report version of the paper.)