Original: Redundant representations help generalization in wide neural networks
Revised: Redundant representations help generalization in wide neural networks

Original: Anonymous Author(s)
Revised: Anonymous Author(s)

Original: AffiliationAddress email
Revised: AffiliationAddress email

Original: Abstract
Revised: Abstract

Original: Deep neural networks (DNNs) defy the classical bias-variance trade-off: addingparameters to a DNN that interpolates its training data will typically improveits generalization performance.
Revised: Deep neural networks (DNNs) defy the classical bias-variance trade-off: addingparameters to a DNN that interpolates its training data will typically improveits generalization performance.

Original: Explaining the mechanism behind this “benignoverfitting” in deep networks remains an outstanding challenge.
Revised: Explaining the mechanism behind this “benignoverfitting” in deep networks remains an outstanding challenge.

Original: Here, we studythe last hidden layer representations of various state-of-the-art convolutional neuralnetworks and find that if the last hidden representation is wide enough, its neuronstend to split into groups that carry identical information, and differ from eachother only by statistically independent noise.
Revised: Here, we studythe last hidden layer representations of various state-of-the-art convolutional neuralnetworks and find that if the last hidden representation is wide enough, its neuronstend to split into groups that carry identical information, and differ from eachother only by statistically independent noise.

Original: The number of such groups increaseslinearly with the width of the layer, but only if the width is above a critical value.
Revised: The number of such groups increaseslinearly with the width of the layer, but only if the width is above a critical value.

Original: We show that redundant neurons appear only when the training process reachesinterpolation and the training error is zero.
Revised: We show that redundant neurons appear only when the training process reachesinterpolation and the training error is zero.

Original:  Introduction
Revised:  Introduction

Original: Deep neural networks (DNN) routinely have enough parameters to achieve zero training error, evenwith random labels [1, 2].
Revised: Deep neural networks (DNN) routinely have enough parameters to achieve zero training error, evenwith random labels [1, 2].

Original: In defiance of the classical bias-variance trade-off, the performance ofthese interpolating classifiers continuously improves as the number of parameters increases wellbeyond the number of training samples [3–6].
Revised: In defiance of the classical bias-variance trade-off, the performance ofthese interpolating classifiers continuously improves as the number of parameters increases wellbeyond the number of training samples [3–6].

Original: Despite recent progress in describing the implicit biasof stochastic gradient descent towards “good” minima [7–12], and the detailed analysis of solvablemodels of learning [13–21], the mechanisms underlying this “benign overfitting” [22] in deep neuralnetworks remain unclear, especially since their loss landscape contains “bad” local minima and SGDcan reach them [23].
Revised: Despite recent progress in describing the implicit biasof stochastic gradient descent towards “good” minima [7–12], and the detailed analysis of solvablemodels of learning [13–21], the mechanisms underlying this “benign overfitting” [22] in deep neuralnetworks remain unclear, especially since their loss landscape contains “bad” local minima and SGDcan reach them [23].

Original: In this paper, we describe a phenomenon in wide, deep neural networks that offers a possiblemechanism for benign overfitting.
Revised: In this paper, we describe a phenomenon in wide, deep neural networks that offers a possiblemechanism for benign overfitting.

Original: We illustrate this mechanism in Fig.
Revised: We illustrate this mechanism in Fig.

Original: 1 for a family of increasinglywide DenseNet40s [24] on CIFAR10 [25].
Revised: 1 for a family of increasinglywide DenseNet40s [24] on CIFAR10 [25].

Original: For simplicity, we refer to the width W of last hiddenrepresentation as the width the network.
Revised: For simplicity, we refer to the width W of last hiddenrepresentation as the width the network.

Original: The blue line in Fig.
Revised: The blue line in Fig.

Original: 1 shows that the average classificationerror ( error ) approaches the performance of a large ensemble of networks ( error ∞ ) [21] as weincrease the network width W .
Revised: 1 shows that the average classificationerror ( error ) approaches the performance of a large ensemble of networks ( error ∞ ) [21] as weincrease the network width W .

Original: So in agreement with [26], we find that the performance of these
Revised: So in agreement with [26], we find that the performance of these

Original: DenseNets improves continuously with width.
Revised: DenseNets improves continuously with width.

Original: Note that for widths greater than 350, the networksare wide enough to reach zero training error (see Fig S3-c in Sec A.2) and their test error decaysapproximately as W − 1 / 2 .
Revised: Note that for widths greater than 350, the networksare wide enough to reach zero training error (see Fig 9-c in Sec A.2) and their test error decaysapproximately as W − 1 / 2 .

Original: Our goal is to understand how the error of the network can keep decayingbeyond the interpolation threshold, and why it decays as W − 1 / 2 .
Revised: Our goal is to understand how the error of the network can keep decayingbeyond the interpolation threshold, and why it decays as W − 1 / 2 .

Original: We make our key observation by performing the following experiment: we randomly select a numberw c of neurons from the last hidden layer of the widest DenseNet40, and remove all the other neuronsfrom that layer as well as their connections.
Revised: We make our key observation by performing the following experiment: we randomly select a numberw c of neurons from the last hidden layer of the widest DenseNet40, and remove all the other neuronsfrom that layer as well as their connections.

Original: We then evaluate the performance of this “chunk” of w cneurons, without retraining the network.
Revised: We then evaluate the performance of this “chunk” of w cneurons, without retraining the network.

Original: The performance of chunks of varying sizes is shown in thesame figure in orange.
Revised: The performance of chunks of varying sizes is shown in thesame figure in orange.

Original: There are two regimes: for small chunks, the error decays faster than w − 1 / 2 c ,while beyond a critical chunk size w ∗ c (shaded area), the error of a chunk of w c neurons is roughly the same as the one of a full network with w c neurons.
Revised: There are two regimes: for small chunks, the error decays faster than w − 1 / 2 c ,while beyond a critical chunk size w ∗ c (shaded area), the error of a chunk of w c neurons is roughly the same as the one of a full network with w c neurons.

Original: Furthermore, the error of the chunks decayswith the same power-law w − 1 / 2 c beyond this critical chunk size.
Revised: Furthermore, the error of the chunks decayswith the same power-law w − 1 / 2 c beyond this critical chunk size.

Original: The decay rate of − 1 / 2 suggests that in this regime chunks of w c neurons can be thought of as statistically independent estimators of the same features of the data, differing only by small, uncorrelatednoise.
Revised: The decay rate of − 1 / 2 suggests that in this regime chunks of w c neurons can be thought of as statistically independent estimators of the same features of the data, differing only by small, uncorrelatednoise.

Original: In other words, beyond the critical width w ∗ c , the final hidden representation of an input ina trained, wide DNN becomes highly redundant.
Revised: In other words, beyond the critical width w ∗ c , the final hidden representation of an input ina trained, wide DNN becomes highly redundant.

Original: This motivates a possible mechanism for benignoverfitting: as the network becomes wider, additional neurons are first used to learn new features ofthe data.
Revised: This motivates a possible mechanism for benignoverfitting: as the network becomes wider, additional neurons are first used to learn new features ofthe data.

Original: Beyond the critical width w ∗ c , additional neurons in the final layer don’t fit to new featuresin the data, and hence over-fit; instead, they make a copy, or a clone , of a feature that is already partof the final representation.
Revised: Beyond the critical width w ∗ c , additional neurons in the final layer don’t fit to new featuresin the data, and hence over-fit; instead, they make a copy, or a clone , of a feature that is already partof the final representation.

Original: The last layer thus splits into more and more clones as the networks growswider as we illustrate at the bottom of Fig.
Revised: The last layer thus splits into more and more clones as the networks growswider as we illustrate at the bottom of Fig.

Original: The accuracy of these wide networks then improveswith their width because the network implicitly averages over an increasing number of clones in itsrepresentations to make its prediction.
Revised: The accuracy of these wide networks then improveswith their width because the network implicitly averages over an increasing number of clones in itsrepresentations to make its prediction.

Original: This paper provides a quantitative analysis of this phenomenon on various datasets using a number ofarchitectures.
Revised: This paper provides a quantitative analysis of this phenomenon on various datasets using a number ofarchitectures.

Original: Our main findings can be summarised as follows:
Revised: Our main findings can be summarised as follows:

Original: A chunk of w c random neurons of the last hidden representation of a wide neural networkpredicts the output with an error that decays as w − 1 / 2 c if the layer is wide enough and w c islarge enough.
Revised: A chunk of w c random neurons of the last hidden representation of a wide neural networkpredicts the output with an accuracy that scales with w − 1 / 2 c if the layer is wide enough andw c is large enough.

Original: In this regime, we call the chunk a “clone”;2.
Revised: In this regime, we call the chunk a “clone”;

Original: Clones can be linearly mapped one to another, or to the full representation, with an errorwhich can be described as uncorrelated random noise.3.
Revised: Clones can be linearly mapped one to another, or to the full representation, with an errorwhich can be described as uncorrelated random noise.3.

Original: Clones appear if the training error is zero and the model is trained with weight decay.
Revised: Clones appear if the training error is zero and the model is trained with weight decay.

Original: Iftraining is stopped too early (e g. when the training accuracy is similar to the test
Revised: Iftraining is stopped too early (e.g. when the training accuracy is similar to the test

Original: accuracy),or if the training is performed without regularization, 1.
Revised: accuracy),or if the training is performed without regularization, 1.

Original: and 2.
Revised: and 2.

Original: do not take place, even if thelast representation is very wide.
Revised: do not take place, even if thelast representation is very wide.

Original:  Methods2.1 Neural network architectures
Revised:  Methods2.1 Neural network architectures

Original: We report experimental results obtained with various architectures (fully connected networks, WideResNet-28, DenseNet40, ResNet50) and various data sets (CIFAR10/100 [25], ImageNet [27]).
Revised: We report experimental results obtained with various architectures (fully connected networks, WideResNet-28, DenseNet40, ResNet50) and various data sets (CIFAR10/100 [25], ImageNet [27]).

Original: Wetrained all the networks with SGD with momentum and weight decay following the standard practiceto set the relevant hyperparameters.
Revised: Wetrained all the networks with SGD with momentum and weight decay following the standard practiceto set the relevant hyperparameters.

Original: We give detailed information on our training setups in A.1.
Revised: We give detailed information on our training setups in A.1.

Original: All our experiments are run on Volta V100 GPUs.
Revised: All our experiments are run on Volta V100 GPUs.

Original: In the following, we discuss how we vary thearchitecture of the models.
Revised: In the following, we discuss how we vary thearchitecture of the models.

Original: Fully-connected networks on MNIST.
Revised: Fully-connected networks on MNIST.

Original: We train a fully-connected network to classify the parityof the MNIST digits [28] (pMNIST) following the protocol of [21].
Revised: We train a fully-connected network to classify the parityof the MNIST digits [28] (pMNIST) following the protocol of [21].

Original: MNIST digits are projectedon the first ten principal components, which are then used as inputs of a five-layer fully-connectednetwork (FC5).
Revised: MNIST digits are projectedon the first ten principal components, which are then used as inputs of a five-layer fully-connectednetwork (FC5).

Original: The four hidden representations have the same width W and the output is a realnumber whose sign is the predictor of the parity of the input digit.
Revised: The four hidden representations have the same width W and the output is a realnumber whose sign is the predictor of the parity of the input digit.

Original: Wide-ResNet-28 and DenseNet40 on CIFAR10/100.
Revised: Wide-ResNet-28 and DenseNet40 on CIFAR10/100.

Original: We train CIFAR10 and CIFAR100 on familyof Wide-ResNet-28 [26] (WR28).
Revised: We train CIFAR10 and CIFAR100 on familyof Wide-ResNet-28 [26] (WR28).

Original: The number of last hidden neurons in a WR28- n is 64 · n , obtainedafter average pooling the last 64 · n channels of the network.
Revised: The number of last hidden neurons in a WR28- n is 64 · n , obtainedafter average pooling the last 64 · n channels of the network.

Original: In our experiments we also analyzetwo narrow versions of the standard WR28-1 which are not typically used in the literature.
Revised: In our experiments we also analyzetwo narrow versions of the standard WR28-1 which are not typically used in the literature.

Original: We namethem WR28-0.25 and WR28-0.5 since they have 1/4 and 1/2 of the number of channels of WR28-1.
Revised: We namethem WR28-0.25 and WR28-0.5 since they have 1/4 and 1/2 of the number of channels of WR28-1.

Original: Our implementation of DenseNet40 follows the DeseNet40-BC variant [24].
Revised: Our implementation of DenseNet40 follows the DeseNet40-BC variant [24].

Original: We vary the number ofinput channels c in { 8 , 16 , 32 , 64 , 128 , 256 } .
Revised: We vary the number ofinput channels c in { 8 , 16 , 32 , 64 , 128 , 256 } .

Original: The number of last hidden features of this architectureis 5 . 5 · c .
Revised: The number of last hidden features of this architectureis 5 . 5 · c .

Original: ResNet50 on ImageNet.
Revised: ResNet50 on ImageNet.

Original: We modify the ResNet50 architecture [29] by multiplying by a constantfactor c ∈ { 0 . 25 , 0 .
Revised: We modify the ResNet50 architecture [29] by multiplying by a constantfactor c ∈ { 0 . 25 , 0 .

Original: 5 , 1 , 2 , 4 } the number of channels of all the layers after the input stem.
Revised: 5 , 1 , 2 , 4 } the number of channels of all the layers after the input stem.

Original: Whenc = 2 our networks differ from the standard Wide-ResNet50-2 since [26] only double the numberof channels of the bottleneck of each ResNet block.
Revised: Whenc = 2 our networks differ from the standard Wide-ResNet50-2 since [26] only double the numberof channels of the bottleneck of each ResNet block.

Original: As a consequence in our implementation thenumber of features w after the last pooling layer is w = 2048 · c while in [26] w is fixed to 2048.
Revised: As a consequence in our implementation thenumber of features w after the last pooling layer is w = 2048 · c while in [26] w is fixed to 2048.

Original: 2.2 Analytical methods
Revised: 2.2 Analytical methods

Original: Reconstructing the wide representation from a smaller chunk.
Revised: Reconstructing the wide representation from a smaller chunk.

Original: To assess the predictive powerof the chunk representations, we search for the best linear map A , of dimensions W × w , ableto minimize the squared difference ( x ( W ) − ˆ x ( W ) ) 2 between the W activations of the full layerrepresentation ( x ( W ) ) and the activations predicted from a chunk of size w ,ˆ x ( W )
Revised: To assess the predictive powerof the chunk representations, we search for the best linear map A , of dimensions W × w , ableto minimize the squared difference ( x ( W ) − ˆ x ( W ) ) 2 between the W activations of the full layerrepresentation ( x ( W ) ) and the activations predicted from a chunk of size w ,

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Ax ( w ) .

Original: This least-squares problem is solved with ridge regression [30] with regularization set to 10 − 8 , andwe use the R 2 coefficient of the fit to measure the predictive power of a given chunk size.
Revised: This least-squares problem is solved with ridge regression [30] with regularization set to 10 − 8 , andwe use the R 2 coefficient of the fit to measure the predictive power of a given chunk size.

Original: Themulti-output R 2 value is computed as an average of the W single-output R 2 values corresponding tothe different coordinates (full layer activations), weighted by the variance of each coordinate.
Revised: Themulti-output R 2 value is computed as an average of the W single-output R 2 values corresponding tothe different coordinates (full layer activations), weighted by the variance of each coordinate.

Original: Wefurther compute the covariance matrix C ij (of dimensions W × W ) of the residuals of this fit, andthen obtain the correlation matrix as
Revised: Wefurther compute the covariance matrix C ij (of dimensions W × W ) of the residuals of this fit, andthen obtain the correlation matrix as

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: with a small regularisation in the denominator to avoid instabilities when the standard deviation of theresiduals falls below machine precision.
Revised: with a small regularisation in the denominator to avoid instabilities when the standard deviation of theresiduals falls below machine precision.

Original: To quantify the independence of the chunk representationswe take the average of the absolute values of the non-diagonal entries of the correlation matrix ρ ij .
Revised: To quantify the independence of the chunk representations we take the average of the absolute values of the non-diagonal entries of the correlation matrix ρ ij .

Original: For short we refer to this quantity as a ‘mean correlation’.
Revised: For short we refer to this quantity as a ‘mean correlation’.

Original: Reproducibility.
Revised: Reproducibility.

Original: We provide code to reproduce our experiments and our analysis online at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/redundant_representation2022-E4FD .
Revised: We provide code to reproduce our experiments and our analysis online at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/redundant_representation2022-E4FD .

Original:  Results
Revised:  Results

Original: [Figure]
Revised: [Figure]

Original: The test error of chunks of w  neurons of the finalrepresentation asymptotically scales as w − 1 / 2 c .
Revised: The test error of chunks of w c neurons of the finalrepresentation asymptotically scales as w − 1 / 2 c .

Original: Themechanism we propose is inspired by the following experiment: we compute the accuracy of models obtainedby selecting a random subset of w c neurons from the final hidden representation of a wide neural network.
Revised: Themechanism we propose is inspired by the following experiment: we compute the accuracy of models obtainedby selecting a random subset of w c neurons from the final hidden representation of a wide neural network.

Original: Weconsider three different data sets (pMNIST, CIFAR10 and
Revised: Weconsider three different data sets (pMNIST, CIFAR10 and

Original: CIFAR100) and trained networks of width W = 

Revised: CIFAR100) and trained networks of width W =

Original: forpMNIST and CIFAR10, and W = 1024 for CIFAR100.
Revised: forpMNIST and CIFAR10, and W = 1024 for CIFAR100.

Original: In all these cases, W is large enough to be firmly in theregime where the accuracy of the networks scales (approximately) as W − 1 / 2 (see Fig. 2).
Revised: In all these cases, W is large enough to be firmly in theregime where the accuracy of the networks scales (approximately) as W − 1 / 2 (see Fig. 2).

Original: We select w c neurons atrandom and we compute the test accuracy of a network inwhich we set to zero the activation of all the other w − w cneurons.
Revised: We select w c neurons atrandom and we compute the test accuracy of a network inwhich we set to zero the activation of all the other w − w cneurons.

Original: Importantly, we do not fine-tune the weights afterselecting the w c neurons: all the parameters are left unchanged, except that the activations of the “killed” neuronsare not used to compute the output.
Revised: Importantly, we do not fine-tune the weights afterselecting the w c neurons: all the parameters are left un- changed, except that the activations of the “killed” neuronsare not used to compute the output.

Original: We take 500 randomsamples of neurons for each chunk width w c .
Revised: We take 500 randomsamples of neurons for each chunk width w c .

Original: In Fig.
Revised: In Fig.

Original: 3 we plot the test error of the chunked models asa function of w c (orange lines).
Revised: 3 we plot the test error of the chunked models asa function of w c (orange lines).

Original: The behavior is similar inall three networks: the test error of the chunks decays asw − 1 / 2 c for chunks that are larger than a critical value w ∗ c ,which depends on the dataset and architecture used.
Revised: The behavior is similar inall three networks: the test error of the chunks decays asw − 1 / 2 c for chunks that are larger than a critical value w ∗ c ,which depends on the dataset and architecture used.

Original: Thisdecay follows the same law observed for full networks of the same width (Fig. 2).
Revised: Thisdecay follows the same law observed for full networks of the same width (Fig. 2).

Original: This implies that amodel obtained by selecting a random chunk of w c > w ∗ c neurons from a wide final representationbehaves similarly to a full network of width W = w c .
Revised: This implies that amodel obtained by selecting a random chunk of w c > w ∗ c neurons from a wide final representationbehaves similarly to a full network of width W = w c .

Original: Furthermore, a decay with rate − 1 / 2 suggeststhat the final representation of the wide networks can be thought of as a collection of statisticallyindependent estimates of a finite set of data features relevant for classification.
Revised: Furthermore, a decay with rate − 1 / 2 suggeststhat the final representation of the wide networks can be thought of as a collection of statisticallyindependent estimates of a finite set of data features relevant for classification.

Original: Adding neurons to thechunk hence reduces their prediction error in the same way an additional measurement reduces themeasurement uncertainty, leading to the − 1 / 2 decay.
Revised: Adding neurons to thechunk hence reduces their prediction error in the same way an additional measurement reduces themeasurement uncertainty, leading to the − 1 / 2 decay.

Original: At w c smaller than w ∗ c instead, the test error of the chunked models decays faster than w − 1 / 2 c in all thecases we considered, including the DenseNet architecture trained on CIFAR10 shown in Fig.
Revised: At w c smaller than w ∗ c instead, the test error of the chunked models decays faster than w − 1 / 2 c in all thecases we considered, including the DenseNet architecture trained on CIFAR10 shown in Fig.

Original: 1-b. Inthis regime, adding neurons to the final representation improves the quality of the model significantlyquicker than it would in independently trained models of the same width (see Fig.
Revised: 1-b. Inthis regime, adding neurons to the final representation improves the quality of the model significantlyquicker than it would in independently trained models of the same width (see Fig.

Original: 1 for a pictorialrepresentation of this process).
Revised: 1 for a pictorialrepresentation of this process).

Original: We call chunks of neurons of size w c ≥ w ∗ c clones .
Revised: We call chunks of neurons of size w c ≥ w ∗ c clones .

Original: In the followingwe characterize more precisely the properties of the clones.
Revised: In the followingwe characterize more precisely the properties of the clones.

Original: Clones interpolate the training data.
Revised: Clones interpolate the training data.

Original: A well trained deep network often represents the salientfeatures of the data set well enough to achieve (close to) zero classification error on the trainingdata.
Revised: A well trained deep network often represents the salientfeatures of the data set well enough to achieve (close to) zero classification error on the trainingdata.

Original: In the top panels of Fig. 4, we show that wide networks are able to interpolate their training setalso using just a subset of w c > w ∗ c random neurons: the dark orange profiles show that when thesize of a chunk is greater than w ∗ c ∼ 50 for pMNIST, 100 for CIFAR10 and 200 for CIFAR100, thepredictive accuracy on the training set remains almost 100%.
Revised: In the top panels of Fig. 4, we show that wide networks are able to interpolate their training setalso using just a subset of w c > w ∗ c random neurons: the dark orange profiles show that when thesize of a chunk is greater than w ∗ c ∼ 50 for pMNIST, 100 for CIFAR10 and 200 for CIFAR100, thepredictive accuracy on the training set remains almost 100%.

Original: The minimal size of a clone w ∗ c , can beidentified with the minimal number of neurons required to interpolate the training set.
Revised: The minimal size of a clone w ∗ c , can beidentified with the minimal number of neurons required to interpolate the training set.

Original: Beyond w ∗ c ,the neurons of the final representation become redundant since the training error remains (close to)zero even after removing neurons from it.
Revised: Beyond w ∗ c ,the neurons of the final representation become redundant since the training error remains (close to)zero even after removing neurons from it.

Original: The number of distinct clones in a network of width W is n = W/w ∗ c .
Revised: The number of distinct clones in a network of width W isn = W/w ∗ c .

Original: If distinct clones provide independent measures of the same salient features of the data,the error decays approximately as n − 1 / 2 or equivalently W − 1 / 2 .
Revised: If distinct clones provide independent measures of the same salient features of the data, the error decays approximately as n − 1 / 2 or equivalently W − 1 / 2 .

Original: In the following we will indeed seethat distinct clones differ from each other by uncorrelated random noise.
Revised: In the following we will indeed see that distinct clones differ from each other by uncorrelated random noise.

Original: Clones reconstruct the full representation almost perfectly.
Revised: Clones reconstruct the full representation almost perfectly.

Original: From a geometrical perspective, theimportant features of the final representation correspond to directions in which the data landscapeshows large variations [31].
Revised: From a geometrical perspective, theimportant features of the final representation correspond to directions in which the data landscapeshows large variations [31].

Original: A clone is a chunk that is wide enough to encode almost exactly thesedirections (since its training error is almost zero), but using much less neurons than the full finalrepresentation.
Revised: A clone is a chunk that is wide enough to encode almost exactly thesedirections (since its training error is almost zero), but using much less neurons than the full finalrepresentation.

Original: We analyze this aspect by performing a linear reconstruction of the W activationsof the last layer of the widest network starting from a random chunk of w c activations using ridgeregression with a small regularization penalty according to Eq.
Revised: We analyze this aspect by performing a linear reconstruction of the W activationsof the last layer of the widest network starting from a random chunk of w c activations using ridgeregression with a small regularization penalty according to Eq.

Original: The blue profiles in Fig.
Revised: The blue profiles in Fig.

Original: 4-(d,e,f),show the R 2 coefficient of fit as a function of the chunk size w c for pMNIST (left), CIFAR10(center), CIFAR100 (right).
Revised: 4-(d,e,f),show the R 2 coefficient of fit as a function of the chunk size w c for pMNIST (left), CIFAR10(center), CIFAR100 (right).

Original: When w c is very small, say below 6 for pMNIST, 20 for CIFAR10and 60 for CIFAR100, the R 2 coefficient grows almost linearly with w c .
Revised: When w c is very small, say below 6 for pMNIST, 20 for CIFAR10and 60 for CIFAR100, the R 2 coefficient grows almost linearly with w c .

Original: In this regime, addinga randomly chosen activation from the full representation to the chunk increases substantially R 2 .
Revised: In this regime, addinga randomly chosen activation from the full representation to the chunk increases substantially R 2 .

Original: When w c becomes larger R 2 reaches almost one.
Revised: When w c becomes larger R 2 reaches almost one.

Original: This transition happens when w c is still muchsmaller than W and correspond approximately to the regime in which the test error starts scalingwith the inverse square root of w c (see Fig. 3).
Revised: This transition happens when w c is still muchsmaller than W and correspond approximately to the regime in which the test error starts scalingwith the inverse square root of w c (see Fig. 3).

Original: The almost perfect reconstruction of the original datalandscape with few neurons can be seen as a consequence of the low intrinsic dimension (ID) ofthe representation [32].
Revised: The almost perfect reconstruction of the original datalandscape with few neurons can be seen as a consequence of the low intrinsic dimension (ID) ofthe representation [32].

Original: The ID of the widest representations gives a lower bound on the number ofcoordinates required to describe the data manifold, and hence on the neurons that a chunk needs inorder to have the same classification accuracy as the whole representation.
Revised: The ID of the widest representations gives a lower bound on the number ofcoordinates required to describe the data manifold, and hence on the neurons that a chunk needs inorder to have the same classification accuracy as the whole representation.

Original: The ID of the last hiddenrepresentation is 2 in pMNIST, 12 in CIFAR10, 14 in CIFAR100, numbers which are much lowerthan w c , the width at which a chunk can be considered a clone.
Revised: The ID of the last hiddenrepresentation is 2 in pMNIST, 12 in CIFAR10, 14 in CIFAR100, numbers which are much lowerthan w c , the width at which a chunk can be considered a clone.

Original: Clones differ from each other by uncorrelated random noise.
Revised: Clones differ from each other by uncorrelated random noise.

Original: When w c > w ∗ c the small residualdifference between the representation chunks and the full representation can be approximatelydescribed as statistically independent random noise.
Revised: When w c > w ∗ c the small residualdifference between the representation chunks and the full representation can be approximatelydescribed as statistically independent random noise.

Original: The green profile of Fig.
Revised: The green profile of Fig.

Original: 4, bottom panels, showthe mean absolute non-diagonal correlation of the residuals of the linear fit, a measure which indicatesthe level of correlation of the chunk representations and the full representation (see Methods).
Revised: 4, bottom panels, showthe mean absolute non-diagonal correlation of the residuals of the linear fit, a measure which indicatesthe level of correlation of the chunk representations and the full representation (see Methods).

Original: Beloww ∗ c , the residuals are not only large, but also significantly correlated, since they are related to relevantfeatures of the data that are not covered by the neurons of the chunk.
Revised: Beloww ∗ c , the residuals are not only large, but also significantly correlated, since they are related to relevantfeatures of the data that are not covered by the neurons of the chunk.

Original: As the chunk width increasesabove w ∗ c , the correlation between residuals drops basically to zero.
Revised: As the chunk width increasesabove w ∗ c , the correlation between residuals drops basically to zero.

Original: Therefore, in networks whichare wider than w ∗ c any two chunks of equal size w c > w ∗ c can be effectively considered as equivalentcopies, or clones, of the same representation, differing only by a small and non-correlated noise,consistently with the scaling law of the error shown in Fig.
Revised: Therefore, in networks whichare wider than w ∗ c any two chunks of equal size w c > w ∗ c can be effectively considered as equivalentcopies, or clones, of the same representation, differing only by a small and non-correlated noise,consistently with the scaling law of the error shown in Fig.

Original: The dynamics of training.
Revised: The dynamics of training.

Original: In the previous paragraphs we set forth evidence in support of thehypothesis that large chunks of the final representation of wide DNNs behave approximately like anensemble of independent measures of the full feature space.
Revised: In the previous paragraphs we set forth evidence in support of thehypothesis that large chunks of the final representation of wide DNNs behave approximately like an Experimental ensemble of independent measures of the full feature space.

Original: This allowed us to interpret the decay ofthe test error of the full networks with the network width observed empirically in Fig.
Revised: This allowed us to interpret the decay ofthe test error of the full networks with the network width observed empirically in Fig.

Original: The threeconditions that a chunked model satisfies in the regime in which its test error decays as w − 1 / 2 c arerepresented in Fig.
Revised: The threeconditions that a chunked model satisfies in the regime in which its test error decays as w − 1 / 2 c arerepresented in Fig.

Original: 4: (i) the training error of the chunked model is close to zero; (ii) the chunkedmodel can be used to reconstruct the full final representation with an R 2 ∼ 1 and (iii) the residualsof this reconstruction can be modeled as independent random noise.
Revised: 4: (i) the training error of the chunked model is close to zero; (ii) the chunkedmodel can be used to reconstruct the full final representation with an R 2 ∼ 1 and (iii) the residualsof this reconstruction can be modeled as independent random noise.

Original: These three conditions are allobserved at the end of the training.
Revised: These three conditions are allobserved at the end of the training.

Original: We now analyze the training dynamics .
Revised: We now analyze the training dynamics .

Original: We will see that for theclones to arise, models not only need to be wide enough, but also, crucially, they need to be trained tomaximise their performance.
Revised: We will see that for theclones to arise, models not only need to be wide enough, but also, crucially, they need to be trained tomaximise their performance.

Original: Clones are formed in two stages, which occur at different times during training.
Revised: Clones are formed in two stages, which occur at different times during training.

Original: The first phasebegins as soon as training starts: the network gradually adjusts the chunk representations in order toproduce independent copies of the data manifold.
Revised: The first phasebegins as soon as training starts: the network gradually adjusts the chunk representations in order toproduce independent copies of the data manifold.

Original: This can be clearly observed in Fig.
Revised: This can be clearly observed in Fig.

Original: 5-a, whichdepicts the mean correlation between the residuals of the linear fit from the chunked to the full finalrepresentations of the network, the same quantity that we analyze in Fig.
Revised: 5-a, whichdepicts the mean correlation between the residuals of the linear fit from the chunked to the full finalrepresentations of the network, the same quantity that we analyze in Fig.

Original: 4-(d-e-f, green profiles),but now as a function of the training epoch.
Revised: 4-(d-e-f, green profiles),but now as a function of the training epoch.

Original: Both Figs.
Revised: Both Figs.

Original: 4 and 5 analyze the WR28-8 on CIFAR10.
Revised: 4 and 5 analyze the WR28-8 on CIFAR10.

Original: As training proceeds, the correlations between residuals diminish gradually until epoch 160, andbecomes particularly low for chunks greater than 64.
Revised: As training proceeds, the correlations between residuals diminish gradually until epoch 160, andbecomes particularly low for chunks greater than 64.

Original: After epoch 160 further training does not bringany sizeable reduction in their correlation.
Revised: After epoch 160 further training does not bringany sizeable reduction in their correlation.

Original: At epoch 160 the full network also achieves zero erroron the training set, as shown in Fig.
Revised: At epoch 160 the full network also achieves zero erroron the training set, as shown in Fig.

Original: 5-b (brown) and Fig.
Revised: 5-b (brown) and Fig.

Original: 5-c (blue).
Revised: 5-c (blue).

Original: This event marks the end ofthe first phase, and the beginning of the second phase where the training error of the clones keepsdecreasing while the full representation (blue) has already reached zero training error.
Revised: This event marks the end ofthe first phase, and the beginning of the second phase where the training error of the clones keepsdecreasing while the full representation (blue) has already reached zero training error.

Original: For example,chunks of size 64 at epoch 150 have training errors comparable to the test error (dashed line of the
Revised: For example,chunks of size 64 at epoch 150 have training errors comparable to the test error (dashed line of themiddle panel).

Revised: In the subsequent ∼ 20 epochs the training error of clones of size 128 and 256 reachesexactly zero, and the training error of chunks of size 64 reaches a plateau.

Original: Betweenand the ofthe progressivelyachieve
Revised: Between the of progressively

Original: In  small improvement middle panel). In the subsequent ∼ 20 epochs the training error of clones of size 128 and 256 reachesexactly zero, and the training error of chunks of size 64 reaches a plateau.
Revised: In the same epochs, one observes a small improvement in the test error.

Original: Importantly, both phases improve the generalization properties of the network.
Revised: Importantly, both phases improve the generalization properties of the network.

Original: This can be seen in
Revised: This can be seen in

Original: Fig.
Revised: Fig.

Original: 5-c, which reports training and test error of the network, with the two phases highlighted.
Revised: 5-c, which reports training and test error of the network, with the two phases highlighted.

Original: Thefigure shows that both phases lead to a reduction in the test error, although the first phase leads byfar to the greatest reduction, consistently with the fact that the greatest improvements in accuracytypically arise during the first epochs of training.
Revised: Thefigure shows that both phases lead to a reduction in the test error, although the first phase leads byfar to the greatest reduction, consistently with the fact that the greatest improvements in accuracytypically arise during the first epochs of training.

Original: The formation of clones can be considered finishedaround epoch 180, when all the clones have reached almost zero error on the training set.
Revised: The formation of clones can be considered finishedaround epoch 180, when all the clones have reached almost zero error on the training set.

Original: After epoch180 we also observe that the test error stops improving.
Revised: After epoch180 we also observe that the test error stops improving.

Original: In Sec.
Revised: In Sec.

Original: A.2 we report the same analysis doneon CIFAR100 (see Fig. S1) and CIFAR10 trained on a DenseNet40 (see Fig.
Revised: A.2 we report the same analysis doneon CIFAR100 (see Fig. 7) and CIFAR10 trained on a DenseNet40 (see Fig.

Original: S3-(d-e-f)).
Revised: 9-(d-e-f)).

Original: Clones appear only in regularized networks.
Revised: Clones appear only in regularized networks.

Original: So far in this work, we have shown only examplesof networks and datasets in which representations are redundant.
Revised: So far in this work, we have shown only examplesof networks and datasets in which representations are redundant.

Original: However, if the network is notregularized, some of the signatures described above don’t appear even if the width of the finalrepresentation is much larger than W ∗ (the minimum interpolating width).
Revised: However, if the network is notregularized, some of the signatures described above don’t appear even if the width of the finalrepresentation is much larger than W ∗ (the minimum interpolating width).

Original: Figure 6 shows the case ofthe Wide-ResNet28-8 analyzed in Fig.
Revised: Figure 6 shows the case ofthe Wide-ResNet28-8 analyzed in Fig.

Original: 5 trained on exactly the same dataset (CIFAR10) but without weight decay.
Revised: 5 trained on exactly the same dataset (CIFAR10) but withoutweight decay.

Original: As shown in Fig.6-a in the network trained without regularization (blue line) the errordoes not scale as w − 1 / 2 c .
Revised: As shown in Fig.6-a in the network trained without regularization (blue line) the errordoes not scale as w − 1 / 2 c .

Original: This, as we have seen, indicates that the last representation cannot be splitin chunks.
Revised: This, as we have seen, indicates that the last representation cannot be split in chunks.

Original: Indeed, the mean correlation of the residuals of the linear map of the chunks to the fullrepresentation remains approximately constant during training (Fig.
Revised: Indeed, the mean correlation of the residuals of the linear map of the chunks to the fullrepresentation remains approximately constant during training (Fig.

Original: 6-b),
Revised: 6-b),

Original: and is always much higherthen what we observed for the same architecture and dataset, when training is performed with weightdecay.
Revised: and is always much higherthen what we observed for the same architecture and dataset, when training is performed with weightdecay.

Original: We performed a similar analysis on the DenseNet40 (see Fig. S4), observing an analogoustrend.
Revised: We performed a similar analysis on the DenseNet40 (see Fig. 10), observing an analogoustrend.

Original: Clones appear only if a network interpolates the training set: the case of ImageNet.
Revised: Clones appear only if a network interpolates the training set: the case of ImageNet.

Original: We sawthat a chunk of neurons can be considered a clone if it fully captures the relevant features of thedata, achieving almost zero training error (see Fig. 4).
Revised: We sawthat a chunk of neurons can be considered a clone if it fully captures the relevant features of thedata, achieving almost zero training error (see Fig. 4).

Original: This condition is not satisfied for most of thenetworks trained on ImageNet [16], therefore we do not expect to see redundant representations inthis important case.
Revised: This condition is not satisfied for most of thenetworks trained on ImageNet [16], therefore we do not expect to see redundant representations inthis important case.

Original: We verified this hypothesis by training a family of ResNet50s where we multiplyall the channels of the layers after the input stem by a constant factor c ∈ { 0 . 25 , 0 . 5 , 1 , 2 , 4 } .
Revised: We verified this hypothesis by training a family of ResNet50s where we multiplyall the channels of the layers after the input stem by a constant factor c ∈ { 0 . 25 , 0 . 5 , 1 , 2 , 4 } .

Original: In thismanner the widest final representation we consider consists of 8192 neurons, which is four timeswider than both the standard ResNet50 [29] and its wider version [26] (see Sec. 2.1).
Revised: In thismanner the widest final representation we consider consists of 8192 neurons, which is four timeswider than both the standard ResNet50 [29] and its wider version [26] (see Sec. 2.1).

Original: We trainedall the networks following the standard protocols and achieved test errors comparable or slightlylower than those reported in the literature (see Sec.
Revised: We trainedall the networks following the standard protocols and achieved test errors comparable or slightlylower than those reported in the literature (see Sec.

Original: A.1).
Revised: A.1).

Original: We find that even in the case of the largest
Revised: We find that even in the case of the largest

Original: ResNet50, the top-1 error on the training set is ∼ 8% (see Fig.
Revised: ResNet50, the top-1 error on the training set is ∼ 8% (see Fig.

Original: S2a) and the network do not achieveinterpolation, consistently with [16].
Revised: 8-a) and the network do not achieveinterpolation, consistently with [16].

Original: In this setting, none of the elements associated with the development of independent clones can beobserved.
Revised: In this setting, none of the elements associated with the development of independent clones can beobserved.

Original: The scaling of the test error of the chunks is steeper than w − 1 / 2 c (see Fig.
Revised: The scaling of the test error of the chunks is steeper than w − 1 / 2 c (see Fig.

Original: S2-b) suggestingthat chunks remain significantly correlated to each other.
Revised: 8-b) suggestingthat chunks remain significantly correlated to each other.

Original: Figure S2-c shows that the mean correlationof the residuals does not decrease during training, as it happens for the networks we trained on
Revised: Figure 8-c shows that the mean correlationof the residuals does not decrease during training, as it happens for the networks we trained on

Original: CIFAR10 and CIFAR100.
Revised: CIFAR10 and CIFAR100.

Original: We conclude that in a ResNet50, a representation with 8192 neuronsis too narrow to encode all the relevant features redundantly on ImageNet and a chunk as large as4096 activations is not able to reconstruct all the relevant variations of the data as it does in the casesanalyzed in Sec. 3.
Revised: We conclude that in a ResNet50, a representation with 8192 neuronsis too narrow to encode all the relevant features redundantly on ImageNet and a chunk as large as4096 activations is not able to reconstruct all the relevant variations of the data as it does in the casesanalyzed in Sec. 3.

Original:  Discussion
Revised:  Discussion

Original: This work is an attempt to explain the paradoxical observation that over-parameterization booststhe performance of DNNs.
Revised: This work is an attempt to explain the paradoxical observation that over-parameterization booststhe performance of DNNs.

Original: This “paradox” is not a peculiarity of DNNs: if one trains a predictionmodel with n parameters using the same training set, but starting from independent initial weightsand receiving samples in an independent way, one can obtain, say, m models which, in suitableconditions, provide predictions of the same quantity with independent noise due to initialization,
Revised: This “paradox” is not a peculiarity of DNNs: if one trains a predictionmodel with n parameters using the same training set, but starting from independent initial weightsand receiving samples in an independent way, one can obtain, say, m models which, in suitableconditions, provide predictions of the same quantity with independent noise due to initialization,

Original: SGD schedule, etc.
Revised: SGD schedule, etc.

Original: If one estimates the target quantity by an ensemble average, the statistical errorwill (ideally) scale with m − 1 / 2 , and therefore with N − 1 / 2 , where N = n m is the total number ofparameters of the combined model.
Revised: If one estimates the target quantity by an ensemble average, the statistical errorwill (ideally) scale with m − 1 / 2 , and therefore with N − 1 / 2 , where N = n m is the total number ofparameters of the combined model.

Original: This will happen even if N is much larger than the number ofdata.
Revised: This will happen even if N is much larger than the number ofdata.

Original: What is less trivial is that a DNN can accomplish this scaling within a single model, in which allthe parameters are optimized collectively via the minimization of a single loss function.
Revised: What is less trivial is that a DNN can accomplish this scaling within a single model, in which allthe parameters are optimized collectively via the minimization of a single loss function.

Original: Our workdescribes a possible mechanism at the basis of this phenomenon in the special case of a neuralnetworks in which the last layer is very wide.
Revised: Our workdescribes a possible mechanism at the basis of this phenomenon in the special case of a neuralnetworks in which the last layer is very wide.

Original: We observe that if the layer is wide enough, randomsubsets of its neurons can be viewed as approximately independent representations of the same datamanifold (or clones).
Revised: We observe that if the layer is wide enough, randomsubsets of its neurons can be viewed as approximately independent representations of the same datamanifold (or clones).

Original: This implies a scaling of the error with the width of the layer as W − 1 / 2 , whichis qualitatively consistent with our observations.
Revised: This implies a scaling of the error with the width of the layer as W − 1 / 2 , whichis qualitatively consistent with our observations.

Original: The impact of network architecture.
Revised: The impact of network architecture.

Original: The capability of a network to produce statistically independent clones is a genuine effect of the over-parametrization of the whole network as we find thatredundancies appear even if the last layer width is kept constant and the width of all intermediatelayers is increased (see Fig.
Revised: The capability of a network to produce statistically independent clones is a genuine effect of the over-parametrization of the whole network as we find thatredundancies appear even if the last layer width is kept constant and the width of all intermediatelayers is increased (see Fig.

Original: S5-a, Sec. A.2).
Revised: 11-a, Sec. A.2).

Original: At the same time, we also verified that if the network istoo narrow to interpolate the training set, increasing the width of only the final representation is notsufficient to make the last layer redundant.
Revised: At the same time, we also verified that if the network istoo narrow to interpolate the training set, increasing the width of only the final representation is notsufficient to make the last layer redundant.

Original: We give an example of this effect in Fig.
Revised: We give an example of this effect in Fig.

Original: S5-b, where weshow that the test error of a WR28-1 on CIFAR10 does not decrease if only the width of the finalrepresentation is increased, while the rest of the architecture is kept at a constant width.
Revised: 11-b, where weshow that the test error of a WR28-1 on CIFAR10 does not decrease if only the width of the finalrepresentation is increased, while the rest of the architecture is kept at a constant width.

Original: The impact of training.
Revised: The impact of training.

Original: The mechanism we described is robust to different training objectivessince we trained the convolutional networks with cross-entropy loss and the fully connected networkswith hinge loss.
Revised: The mechanism we described is robust to different training objectivessince we trained the convolutional networks with cross-entropy loss and the fully connected networks with hinge loss.

Original: However, even for wide enough architectures, clones appear only if the training iscontinued until the training error reaches zero.
Revised: However, even for wide enough architectures, clones appear only if the training iscontinued until the training error reaches zero.

Original: In our examples, by stopping the training too early,for example when the training error is similar to the test error, the chunks of the last representationwould not become entirely independent from one another, and therefore they could not be consideredclones.
Revised: In our examples, by stopping the training too early,for example when the training error is similar to the test error, the chunks of the last representationwould not become entirely independent from one another, and therefore they could not be consideredclones.

Original: Neural scaling laws.
Revised: Neural scaling laws.

Original: Capturing the asymptotic performance of neural network via scaling lawsis another active research area.
Revised: Capturing the asymptotic performance of neural network via scaling laws isanother active research area.

Original: Hestness et al.

Original: [33] gave an experimental analysis of scaling lawsw.r.t the training data set size in a variety of domains.
Revised: [33] gave an experimental analysis of scaling laws w.r.t the training dataset size in a variety of domains.

Original: [34, 35] experimentally explored the scalingof the generalization error of deep networks with the number of parameters/data points acrossarchitectures and application domains for supervised learning, while [36] identified empirical scalinglaws in generative models. Geiger et al. [21] found that the generalization error of networks trainedon pMNIST without weight decay, momentum and data augmentation scales as W − 1 .
Revised: [34, 35] experimentally explored the scaling of the generalizationerror of deep networks with the number of parameters/data points across architectures and applicationdomains for supervised learning, while [36] identified empirical scaling laws in generative models.[21] found that the generalization error of networks trained on pMNIST without weight decay,momentum and data augmentation scales as W − 1 .

Original: Bahri etal.

Original: [37] showed the existence of four scaling regimes and described them theoretically in the NTK orlazy regime [38–40], where the network weights stay close to their initial values throughout training.
Revised: [37] showed the existence of four scaling regimesand described them theoretically in the NTK or lazy regime , where the network weights stay closeto their initial values throughout training.

Original: We instead consider the feature learning regime, where weights move considerably as the networkslearn task-relevant features.
Revised: We instead consider the feature learning regime, whereweights move considerably as the networks learn task-relevant features.

Original: Moreover, we train our networks with weight decay which is unavoidableto obtain models with state-of-the-art performance.
Revised: Moreover, we train ournetworks with weight decay which is unavoidable to obtain models with state-of-the-art performance.

Original: Previous theoretical work mainly focused onthe NTK regime and did not study the impact of weight decay on scaling laws, so we hope that ourresults can spark further studies on the role of this essential regularizer.
Revised: Previous theoretical work mainly focused on the NTK regime and did not study the impact of weightdecay on scaling laws, so we hope that our results can spark further studies on the role of this essentialregularizer.

Original: Relation to theoretical results in the mean-field regime.
Revised: Relation to theoretical results in the mean-field regime.

Original: Our empirical results also agree withrecent theoretical results that were obtained for two-layer neural networks [41–46].
Revised: Our empirical results also agree withrecent theoretical results that were obtained for two-layer neural networks [38–43].

Original: These workscharacterize the optimal solutions of two-layer networks trained on synthetic datasets with somecontrolled features.
Revised: These workscharacterize the optimal solutions of two-layer networks trained on synthetic datasets with somecontrolled features.

Original: In the limit of infinite training data, these optimal solutions correspond tonetworks where neurons in the hidden layer duplicate the key features of the data.
Revised: In the limit of infinite training data, these optimal solutions correspond tonetworks where neurons in the hidden layer duplicate the key features of the data.

Original: These “denoisingsolutions” or “distributional fixed points” were found for networks with wide hidden layers [41–44]and wide input dimension [45, 46].
Revised: These “denoisingsolutions” or “distributional fixed points” were found for networks with wide hidden layers [38–41]and wide input dimension [42, 43].

Original: Another point of connection with the theoretical literature is theconcept of dropout stability .
Revised: Another point of connection with the theoretical literature is theconcept of dropout stability .

Original: A network is said to be ϵ -dropout
Revised: A network is said to be ϵ -dropout

Original: stable if its training loss changes byless than ϵ when half the neurons are removed at random from each of its layers [47].
Revised: stable if its training loss changes byless than ϵ when half the neurons are removed at random from each of its layers [44].

Original: Dropout stabilityhas been rigorously linked to several phenomena in neural networks, such as the connectedness ofthe minima of their training landscape [48, 49].
Revised: Dropout stabilityhas been rigorously linked to several phenomena in neural networks, such as the connectedness ofthe minima of their training landscape [45, 46].

Original: Implicit ensembling in deep learning.
Revised: Implicit ensembling in deep learning.

Original: The success of various deep learning architectures andtechniques has been linked to some form of ensembling.
Revised: The success of various deep learning architectures andtechniques has been linked to some form of ensembling.

Original: [50] proposed that the performanceof ResNets [29] stems from an effective ensembling of shallower networks due to the residualconnections.
Revised: [47] proposed that the performanceof ResNets [29] stems from an effective ensembling of shallower networks due to the residualconnections.

Original: The successful dropout regularisation technique [51, 52] samples from an exponentialnumber of “thinned” networks during training to prevent co-adaptation of hidden units.
Revised: The successful dropout regularisation technique [48, 49] samples from an exponentialnumber of “thinned” networks during training to prevent co-adaptation of hidden units.

Original: While thiscan be seen as a form of (implicit) ensembling, here we observe that co-adaptation of hidden units inthe form of clones occurs without dropout, and is crucial for their improving performance with width.
Revised: While thiscan be seen as a form of (implicit) ensembling, here we observe that co-adaptation of hidden units inthe form of clones occurs without dropout, and is crucial for their improving performance with width.

Original: Recent theoretical work on random features [18–20] also suggests that ensembling and overparameterization are two sides of the same coin, at least in the lazy regime of neural networks [40],where the weights of the networks’ hidden layers don’t move much during training.
Revised: Recent theoretical work on random features [18–20] also suggests that ensembling and overparameterization are two sides of the same coin, at least in the lazy regime of neural networks [50],where the weights of the networks’ hidden layers don’t move much during training.

Original: In this paperinstead, we focus on networks in the feature learning regime where weights move significantly.
Revised: In this paperinstead, we focus on networks in the feature learning regime where weights move significantly.

Original: Wehope that our results motivate theoretical studies along those lines in the feature learning regime.
Revised: Wehope that our results motivate theoretical studies along those lines in the feature learning regime.

Original: Impact for applications.
Revised: Impact for applications.

Original: The framework introduced in this work allows verifying if a neural networkis sufficiently expressive to encode multiple statistically independent representations of the sameground truth, which, we believe, is a fair proxy of model quality and robustness.
Revised: The framework introduced in this work allows verifying if a neural networkis sufficiently expressive to encode multiple statistically independent representations of the sameground truth, which, we believe, is a fair proxy of model quality and robustness.

Original: In particular, wefind that reaching interpolation on the training set is not necessarily detrimental for generalization,and is instead a necessary condition for developing redundancies which, in turn, reduce the test error.
Revised: In particular, wefind that reaching interpolation on the training set is not necessarily detrimental for generalization,and is instead a necessary condition for developing redundancies which, in turn, reduce the test error.

Original: A AppendixA.1 Hyperparameters used and training procedures
Revised: A AppendixA.1 Hyperparameters used and training procedures

Original: Fully-connected networks on MNIST.
Revised: Fully-connected networks on MNIST.

Original: We train the fully-connected networks for 5000 epochswith stochastic gradient descent using the following hyperparameters: batch size = 256, momentum =0.9, learning rate = 10 − 3 , weight decay = 10 − 2 .
Revised: We train the fully-connected networks for 5000 epochswith stochastic gradient descent using the following hyperparameters: batch size = 256, momentum =0.9, learning rate = 10 − 3 , weight decay = 10 − 2 .

Original: We optimize our networks using Adam.
Revised: We optimize our networks using Adam.

Original: Wide-ResNet-28 and DenseNet40-BC on CIFAR10/100.
Revised: Wide-ResNet-28 and DenseNet40-BC on CIFAR10/100.

Original: All the models are trained for 200epochs with stochastic gradient descent with a batch size = 128, momentum = 0.9, and cosineannealing scheduler starting with a learning rate of 0.1.
Revised: All the models are trained for 200epochs with stochastic gradient descent with a batch size = 128, momentum = 0.9, and cosineannealing scheduler starting with a learning rate of 0.1.

Original: The training set is augmented with horizontalflips with 50% probability and random cropping the images padded with four pixels on each side.
Revised: The training set is augmented with horizontalflips with 50% probability and random cropping the images padded with four pixels on each side.

Original: On CIFAR10 trained on WR28 we select a weight decay equal to 5 · 10 − 4 and label smoothingmagnitudes equal to 0.1 for WR28-{0.25, 0.5, 1, 2} and equal to 0 for WR28-{4, 8}.
Revised: On CIFAR10 trained on WR28 we select a weight decay equal to 5 · 10 − 4 and label smoothingmagnitudes equal to 0.1 for WR28-{0.25, 0.5, 1, 2}.

Original: On CIFAR10trained on Densenet40-BC we set select a weight decay equal to 5 · 10 − 4 and label smoothingmagnitudes equal to 0.05 for all the networks On CIFAR100 trained on WR28 we set weight decaysequal to {10, 7, 5, 5, 5} · 10 − 4 and label smoothing magnitudes equal to {0.1, 0.07, 0.05, 0, 0} for WR28-{1, 2, 4, 8, 16} respectively.
Revised: On CIFAR10 trained on Densenet40-BC weset select a weight decay equal to 5 · 10 − 4 and label smoothing magnitudes equal to 0.05 for all thenetworks On CIFAR100 trained on WR28 we set weight decays equal to {10, 7, 5, 5, 5} · 10 − 4 andlabel smoothing magnitudes equal to {0.1, 0.07, 0.05, 0, 0} for WR28-{1, 2, 4, 8, 16} respectively.

Original: All the hyperparameters were selected with a small grid search.
Revised: All the hyperparameters were selected with a small grid search.

Original: ResNet50 on ImageNet.
Revised: ResNet50 on ImageNet.

Original: We train all the ResNet50 with mixed precision [53] for 120 epochs witha weight decay of 4 · 10 − 5 and label smoothing rate of 0.1 [54].
Revised: We train all the ResNet50 with mixed precision [51] for 120 epochs witha weight decay of 4 · 10 − 5 and label smoothing rate of 0.1 [52].

Original: The input size is 224 × 224 and thetraining set is augmented with random crops and horizontal flips with 50% probability.
Revised: The input size is 224 × 224 and thetraining set is augmented with random crops and horizontal flips with 50% probability.

Original: The per-GPUbatch size is set to 128 and is halved for the widest networks to fit in the GPU memory.
Revised: The per-GPUbatch size is set to 128 and is halved for the widest networks to fit in the GPU memory.

Original: The networksare trained on 8 or 16 Volta V100 GPUs so as to keep the batch size Bequal to 1024.
Revised: The networksare trained on 8 or 16 Volta V100 GPUs so as to keep the batch size B

Original: The learningrate is increased linearly from 0 to 0.1 · B /256 [55] for the first five epochs and then annealed to zerowith a cosine schedule.

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]