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

Title: Coherent Gradients: An Approach to Understanding Generalization in Gradient Descent-based Optimization

Paper content:
An open question in the Deep Learning community is why neural networks trained with Gradient Descent generalize well on real datasets even though they are capable of fitting random data.
We propose an approach to answering this question based on a hypothesis about the dynamics of gradient descent that we call Coherent Gradients: Gradients from similar examples are similar and so the overall gradient is stronger in certain directions where these reinforce each other.
Thus changes to the network parameters during training are biased towards those that (locally) simultaneously benefit many examples when such similarity exists.
We support this hypothesis with heuristic arguments and perturbative experiments and outline how this can explain several common empirical observations about Deep Learning.
Furthermore, our analysis is not just descriptive, but prescriptive.
It suggests a natural modification to gradient descent that can greatly reduce overfitting.
Neural networks used in practice often have sufficient effective capacity to learn arbitrary maps from their inputs to their outputs.
This is typically demonstrated by training a classification network that achieves good test accuracy on a real dataset S, on a modified version of S (call it S ) where the labels are randomized and observing that the training accuracy on S is very high, though, of course, the test accuracy is no better than chance (Zhang et al., 2017) .
This leads to an important open question in the Deep Learning community (Zhang et al. (2017) ; Arpit et al. (2017) ; Bartlett et al. (2017) ; Kawaguchi et al. (2017) ; ; Arora et al. (2018) ; Belkin et al. (2019) ; Rahaman et al. (2019) ; Nagarajan & Kolter (2019), etc.
) : Among all maps that fit a real dataset, how does Gradient Descent (GD) find one that generalizes well?
This is the question we address in this paper.
We start by observing that this phenomenon is not limited to neural networks trained with GD but also applies to Random Forests and Decision Trees.
However, there is no mystery with trees: A typical tree construction algorithm splits the training set recursively into similar subsets based on input features.
If no similarity is found, eventually, each example is put into its own leaf to achieve good training accuracy (but, of course, at the cost of poor generalization).
Thus, trees that achieve good accuracy on a randomized dataset are much larger than those on a real dataset.
Is it possible that something similar happens with GD?
We believe so.
The type of randomized-label experiments described above show that if there are common patterns to be found, then GD finds them.
If not, it fits each example on a case-by-case basis.
The question then is, what is it about the dynamics of GD that makes it possible to extract common patterns from the data?
And what does it mean for a pattern to be common?
Since the only change to the network parameters in GD comes from the gradients, the mechanism to detect commonality amongst examples must be through the gradients.
We propose that this commonality detection can be explained as follows:
1. Gradients are coherent, i.e, similar examples (or parts of examples) have similar gradients (or similar components of gradients) and dissimilar examples have dissimilar gradients.
2. Since the overall gradient is the sum of the per-example gradients, it is stronger in directions where the per-example gradients are similar and reinforce each other and weaker in other directions where they are different and do not add up.
3. Since network parameters are updated proportionally to gradients, they change faster in the direction of stronger gradients.
4. Thus the changes to the network during training are biased towards those that simultaneously benefit many examples instead of a few (or one example).
For convenience, we refer to this as the Coherent Gradients hypothesis.
It is instructive to work through the proposed mechanism in the context of a simple thought experiment.
Consider a training set with two examples a and b.
At some point in training, suppose the gradient of a, g a , can be decomposed into two orthogonal components g a1 and g a2 of roughly equal magnitude, i.e., there are two, equally good, independent ways in which the network can better fit a (by using say two disjoint parts of the network).
Likewise, for b.
Now, further suppose that one of the two ways is common to both a and b, i.e., say g a2 = g b2 = g ab , whereas, the other two are example specific, i.e., g a1 , g b1 = 0.
Now, the overall gradient is
Observe that the gradient is stronger in the direction that simultaneously helps both examples and thus the corresponding parameter changes are bigger than those those that only benefit only one example.
It is important to emphasize that the notion of similarity used above (i.e., which examples are considered similar) is not a constant but changes in the course of training as network parameters change.
It starts from a mostly task independent notion due to random initialization and is bootstrapped in the course of training to be task dependent.
We say "mostly" because even with random initialization, examples that are syntactically close are treated similarly (e.g., two images differing in the intensities of some pixels as opposed to two images where one is a translated version of the other).
The relationship between strong gradients and generalization can also be understood through the lens of algorithmic stability (Bousquet & Elisseeff, 2002) : strong gradient directions are more stable since the presence or absence of a single example does not impact them as much, as opposed to weak gradient directions which may altogether disappear if a specific example is missing from the training set.
With this observation, we can reason inductively about the stability of GD: since the initial values of the parameters do not depend on the training data, the initial function mapping examples to their gradients is stable.
Now, if all parameter updates are due to strong gradient directions, then stability is preserved.
However, if some parameter updates are due to weak gradient directions, then stability is diminished.
Since stability (suitably formalized) is equivalent to generalization (Shalev-Shwartz et al., 2010) , this allows us to see how generalization may degrade as training progresses.
Based on this insight, we shall see later how a simple modification to GD to suppress the weak gradient directions can dramatically reduce overfitting.
In addition to providing insight into why GD generalizes in practice, we believe that the Coherent Gradients hypothesis can help explain several other empirical observations about deep learning in the literature:
(a) Learning is slower with random labels than with real labels (Zhang et al., 2017)
(b) Robustness to large amounts of label noise (Rolnick et al., 2017)
(c) Early stopping leads to better generalization (Caruana et al., 2000)
(d) Increasing capacity improves generalization (Caruana et al., 2000;
(e) The existence of adversarial initialization schemes (Liu et al., 2019)
(f) GD detects common patterns even when trained with random labels (Chatterjee & Mishchenko, 2019) A direct experimental verification of the Coherent Gradients hypothesis is challenging since the notion of similarity between examples depends on the parameters of the network and thus changes during training.
Our approach, therefore, is to design intervention experiments where we establish a baseline and compare it against variants designed to test some aspect or prediction of the theory.
As part of these experiments, we replicate the observations
(a)-(c
) in the literature noted above, and analyze the corresponding explanations provided by Coherent Gradients ( §2), and outline for future work how (d)-(f
) may
be accounted for ( §5).
In this paper, we limit our study to simple baselines: vanilla Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) on MNIST using fully connected networks.
We believe that this is a good starting point, since even in this simple setting, with all frills eliminated (e.g., inductive bias from architecture or explicit regularization, or a more sophisticated optimization procedure), we are challenged to find a satisfactory explanation of why SGD generalizes well.
Furthermore, our prior is that the difference between weak and strong directions is small at any one step of training, and therefore having a strong learning signal as in the case of MNIST makes a direct analysis of gradients easier.
It also has the benefit of having a smaller carbon footprint and being easier to reproduce.
Finally, based on preliminary experiments on other architectures and datasets we are optimistic that the insights we get from studying this simple setup apply more broadly.
Although there has been a lot of work in recent years in trying to understand generalization in Deep Learning, no entirely satisfactory explanation has emerged so far.
There is a rich literature on aspects of the stochastic optimization problem such as the loss landscape and minima (e.g., Choromanska et al. (2015) ; Zhu et al. (2018) ), the curvature around stationary points (e.g., Hochreiter & Schmidhuber (1997) ; Keskar et al. (2016) ; Dinh et al. (2017) ; Wu et al. (2018) ), and the implications of stochasticity due to sampling in SGD (e.g., Simsekli et al. (2019) ).
However, we believe it should be possible to understand generalization without a detailed understanding of the optimization landscape.
For example, since stopping early typically leads to small generalization gap, the nature of the solutions of GD (e.g., stationary points, the limit cycles of SGD at equilibrium) cannot be solely responsible for generalization.
In fact, from this observation, it would appear that an inductive argument for generalization would be more natural.
Likewise, there is reason to believe that stochasticity is not fundamental to generalization (though it may help).
For example, modifying the experiment in §2.1 to use full batch leads to similar qualitative generalization results.
This is consistent with other small scale studies (e.g., Figure 1 of Wu et al. (2018) ) though we are not aware of any large scale studies on full batch.
Our view of optimization is a simple, almost combinatorial, one: gradient descent is a greedy search with some hill-climbing thrown in (due to sampling in SGD and finite step size).
Therefore, we worry less about the quality of solutions reached, but more about staying "feasible" at all times during the search.
In our context, feasibility means being able to generalize; and this naturally leads us to look at the transition dynamics to see if that preserves generalizability.
Another approach to understanding generalization, is to argue that gradient-based optimization induces a form of implicit regularization leading to a bias towards models of low complexity.
This is an extension of the classical approach where bounding a complexity measure leads to bounds on the generalization gap.
As is well known, classical measures of complexity (also called capacity) do not work well.
For example, sometimes adding more parameters to a net can help generalization (see for e.g. Lawrence et al. (1996); ) and, as we have seen, VC-Dimension and Rademacher Complexity-based bounds must be vacuous since networks can memorize random labels and yet generalize on real data.
This has led to a lot of recent work in identifying better measures of complexity such as spectrally-normalized margin (Bartlett et al., 2017) , path-based group norm , a compression-based approach (Arora et al., 2018) , etc.
However, to our knowledge, none of these measures is entirely satisfactory for accounting for generalization in practice.
Please see Nagarajan & Kolter (2019) for an excellent discussion of the challenges.
We rely on a different classical notion to argue generalization: algorithmic stability (see Bousquet & Elisseeff (2002) for a historical overview).
We have provided only an informal argument in Section 1, but there has been prior work by Hardt et al. (2016) in looking at GD and SGD through the lens of stability, but their formal results do not explain generalization in practical settings (e.g., multiple epochs of training and non-convex objectives).
In fact, such an attempt appears unlikely to work since our experimental results imply that any stability bounds for SGD that do not account for the actual training data must be vacuous!
(This was also noted by Zhang et al. (2017) .
) That said, we believe stability is the right way to think about generalization in GD for a few reasons.
First, since by Shalev-Shwartz et al. (2010) stability, suitably formalized, is equivalent to generalization.
Therefore, in principle, any explanation of generalizability for a learning problem must-to borrow a term from category theory-factor through stability.
Second, a stability based analysis may be more amenable to taking the actual training data into account (perhaps by using a "stability accountant" similar to a privacy accountant) which appears necessary to get non-vacuous bounds for practical networks and datasets.
Finally, as we have seen with the modification in §3, a stability based approach is not just descriptive but prescriptive 1 and can point the way to better learning algorithms.
The work of Rahaman et al. (2019) is particularly relevant.
They compute the Fourier spectrum of ReLU networks and argue based on heuristics and experiments that these networks learn low frequency functions first.
In contrast, we focus not on the function learnt, but on the mechanism in GD to detect commonality.
This leads to a perspective that is at once simpler and more general (for e.g., it applies equally to networks with other activation functions, with attention, LSTMs, and discrete (combinatorial) inputs).
Furthermore, it opens up a path to analyzing generalization via stability.
It is is not clear if Rahaman et al. (2019) claim a causal mechanism, but their analysis does not suggest an obvious intervention experiment such as ours of §3 to test causality.
There are other experimental results that show biases towards linear functions (Nakkiran et al., 2019) and functions with low descriptive complexity (Valle-Perez et al., 2019) but these papers do not posit a causal mechanism.
It is interesting to consider if Coherent Gradients can provide a unified explanation for these observed biases.
Finally, Fort et al. (2019) (concurrent submission) propose a descriptive statistic stiffness based on pairwise per-example gradients and show experimentally that it can be used to characterize generalization.
Sankararaman et al. (2019) (also concurrent submission) independently propose a very similar statistic called gradient confusion but use it to study the speed of training.
Unlike our work, these do not propose causal mechanisms for generalization, but these statistics (which are rather different from those in §2.4) could be useful for the further study of Coherent Gradients.

assistant: text: We propose a hypothesis for why gradient descent generalizes based on how per-example gradients interact with each other.