As someone who works in the area, this provides a decent summary of the most popular research items. The most useful and impressive part is the set of open problems at the end, which just about covers all of the main research directions in the field.
The skepticism I'm seeing in the comments really highlights how little of this work is trickling down to the public, which is very sad to see. While it can offer few mathematical mechanisms to infer optimal network design yet (mostly because just trying stuff empirically is often faster than going through the theory, so it is more common to retroactively infer things), the question "why do neural networks work better than other models?" is getting pretty close to a solid answer. Problem is, that was never the question people seem to have ever really been interested in, so the field now has to figure out what questions we ask next.
We’re in a strange era where the Information-Theoretic foundations of deep learning are solidifying. The 'Why' is largely solved: it’s the efficient minimization of irreversible information loss relative to the noise floor. There is so much waste scaling models bigger and bigger when the math points to how to do it much more efficiently. One can take a great 70B model and have it run in only ~16GB with no loss in capability and the ability to keep training, but the last few years funding only went for "bigger".
As you noted, the industry has moved the goalposts to Agency and Long-horizon Persistence. The transition from building 'calculators that predict' to 'systems that endure' is a non-equilibrium thermodynamics problem. There is math/formulas and basic laws at play here that apply to AI just as much as it applies to other systems. Ironically it is the same math. The same thing that results in a signal persisting in a model will result in agents persisting.
This is my specific niche. I study how things persist. It’s honestly a bit painful watching the AI field struggle to re-learn first principles that other disciplines have already learned. I have a doc I use to help teach folks how the math works and how to apply it to their domain and it is fun giving it folks who then stop guessing and know exactly how to improve the persistence of what they are working on. Like the idea of "How many hours we can have a model work" is so cute compared to the right questions.
> It’s honestly a bit painful watching the AI field struggle to re-learn first principles that other disciplines have already learned.
This is my fear with software development in general. There's a hundred-year old point of view right next door that'll solve problems and I'm too incurious to see it.
I have a relative with a focus in math education that I've been stealing ideas from, and I think we'd both appreciate a look at your doc if you don't mind.
I think some of it has to do with incentives. Nobody wants to invest in a team to adapt and test other-field lessons that may come out as "there's no free lunch" or "this is equivalent to a hard problem they didn't solve there yet either."
So instead we're more likely to see navel-gazing "singularity" stories that fit with telling your investors they will become fantastically rich.
> One can take a great 70B model and have it run in only ~16GB with no loss in capability and the ability to keep training, but the last few years funding only went for "bigger".
Awesome. What is holding you back? What do you need the funding for?
Presumably $100m to train the 70B model? I think you're assuming that the author meant you can take an existing 70B model and run it in 16GB. But it stands to reason that "no loss in capability" means it had to be trained under those constraints.
I'm constantly surprised how many people are critical of research to understand neural nets, immediately telling me they are black boxes and hopeless to understand. I believe it's a consequence of being portrayed as the opposite of (classically interpretable) linear regression.
Many people additionally have little patience for research when the engineering is moving so quickly. Even many interpretability researchers give up far too soon if research doesn't yield immediately gratifying results.
I'm not in the field but I think it's because historically neural nets were looked down and deemed unpromising because they lacked understanding, compared to Symbolic AI or SVM for example. Since the Deep Learning revolution, which is engineering driven, the trend has inverted, research to understand and theory are seen as the things that hindered progress with neural nets in the past.
Part of the issue with neural nets is that historically they were next to impossible to train. ADAM, BatchNorm/LayerNorm, initialization schemes, and GPUs for pure speed really helped to change all of that.
> the question "why do neural networks work better than other models?" is getting pretty close to a solid answer.
This would be great, as from the "classical" perspective, the results of over-parametization and potentially other parts of NN architecture make no sense (to me, at least). I do accept that double-descent appears to empirically work, but it really, really shouldn't. In fact, as someone who's a big fan of Hastie et al's Elements, the bias variance tradeoff suggests that they shouldn't.
This has been bugging me (sporadically) for years, and any progress towards an answer would be incredibly useful (most probably in a philosophical sense I suppose).
As an aside, I've only read the Introduction, but this appears to be a well-written paper and a research program I can get behind. I really want this stuff to work.
I guess it's similar to bagging and boosting, which were empirically successful well before we had any theoretical understanding of why they work.
Hastie was actually lead author of an excellent paper that discusses the underlying phenomenon in the context of least-squares linear regression: https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.08560
It really isn't so mysterious once you begin to examine how the rule of thumb for the bias-variance tradeoff (remember that it is the relationship with model size that is curious, not the tradeoff itself) came to be. The easiest ways to arrive at this rule are through an information criterion like the AIC or BIC, where the model size appears in the penalty term for the log-likelihood. These criteria have a bunch of assumptions, all of which are crucial, and absolutely none of which apply for neural networks. The biggest one is that the only limiting regime is in the size of the dataset, so there are vastly more data than model parameters. Neural networks have parameter counts within a constant ratio of the number of datapoints. Another is that the model has a non-singular Hessian in a neighbourhood of the optimum. Neural networks do not have this. Once you abandon the rule of thumb and actually do the math in the appropriate limiting regimes, there's no contradiction anymore.
I've found the biggest mystery for people though is the fact that performance actually _improves_ after the interpolation threshold. This seems insane if you come at it from the point of view that the model "could have done anything" if there are more parameters than data. But this isn't true at all. The fact that you have obtained _a solution_ means that you imposed some implicit bias that guided which solution you end up in. For linear regression, that is often the minimum L2 norm solution, which _literally_ minimizes the variance keeping all else fixed. If you add more parameters to play with, obviously it should be able to minimize the variance even further, right? If the bias is zero and the variance is reduced, you get better performance. If you use a different optimizer than gradient descent, you can end up at the minimum L1 norm solution (effectively LASSO), which is well-known to perform really well regardless of the number of parameters.
Of course, linear regression is not neural network regression, and the situation in deep learning is far more complicated. But the same idea applies. Every single part of the training procedure is carefully designed to bias the obtained solution toward something with minimal variance. Stochastic optimizers (even dropout) settle in wide minima which have smaller variances. Some optimizers prioritize stronger correlations in the weights. Bottlenecks in the architecture induce low-rank solutions. Data augmentation induce known invariances that reduce variance along those directions. Convolutional designs induce regularity with respect to the input space. Neural networks are not magic; they are the product of hundreds of intentional design decisions over decades. When you increase the size of the model, all of these features are exacerbated.
Quantifying all of this in the theory is difficult because there are a lot of moving parts. But if you study a simplified model and consider each mechanism individually, the picture becomes pretty clear.
Check out Andrew Gordon Wilson's excellent paper "Deep Learning is Not so Mysterious or Different" for a discussion of the ways in which existing learning theory does and doesn't work neural nets.
The properties that the uniform approximation theorem proves are not unique to neural networks.
Any models using an infinite dimensional Hilbert space, such as SVMs with RBF or polynomial kernels, Gaussian process regression, gradient boosted decision trees, etc. have the same property (though proven via a different theorem of course).
So the universal approximation theorem tells us nothing about why should expect neural networks to perform better than those models.
Extremely well said. Universal approximation is necessary but not sufficient for the performance we are seeing. The secret sauce is implicit regularization, which comes about analogously to enforcing compression.
>Do you think grokking is consistent with implicit regularization as compression
Pretty sure it's been shown that grokking requires L1 regularization which pushes model parameters towards zero. This can be viewed as compression in the sense of encoding the distribution in the fewest bits possible, which happens to correspond to better generalization.
Couldn't have said it better, although this is only for grokking with the modular addition task on networks with suitable architectures. L1 regularization is absolutely a clear form of compression. The modular addition example is one of the best cases to see the phenomenon in action.
I don't think that this is true. You need an infinite number of dimensions for this (think Taylor's expansion, Fourier expansion, infinitely wide or deep NNs..)
I'll use 1NN as the interpolation strategy instead since I think it illustrates the same point and saves a few characters.
Recap: 1NN says that given a query Q you choose any pair (X,Y) from your learned "model" (a finite set of (X,Y) pairs) M minimizing |Q-X|. Your output is Y.
The following kind of argument works for linear interpolation too (you can even view 1NN as 1-point interpolation), but it's ever so slightly messier since definitions vary a fair bit, you potentially need to talk about the existence of >1 discrete "nearest" or "enclosing" set of neighbors, and proving that you can get away with fewer points than 1NN or have lower error than 1NN is itself also messier.
Pick your favorite compact-domain, continuous function embedded in some Euclidean space. For any target error you'd like to hit, the uniform continuity of that function guarantees that if your samples cover the domain well enough (no point in the domain is greater than some fixed distance, needing smaller distances for lower errors, from some point in your model) then the maximum error from a 1NN strategy is bounded by the associated error given by uniform continuity (which, again, you can make as small as you'd like by increasing the sampling resolution). The compact domain means you can physically achieve those error bounds with finite sample sizes.
For a simple example, imagine fitting more and more, smaller and smaller, line segments to y=x^2 on [-1,1].
> unlike f.e. which side of P/NP divide the problem is on
Actually the P/NP divide is a similar case in my opinion. In practice a quadratic algorithm is sometimes unacceptably slow and an NP problem can be virtually solved. E.g. SAT problems are routinely solved at scale.
An NP problem can contain subproblems that are not worst case problems.
It's similar to the gap between pushdown automata and Turing machines. You can check if pushdown automata will terminate or not. You can't do it for Turing machines, but this doesn't stop you from running a pushdown automata algorithm on the turning machine with decidable termination.
It's very much necessary but not sufficient. In real life the sample complexity matters a lot too, which is also asymptotics, but a more important one. E.g. how the central limit theorem is far more powerful than the law of large numbers.
I don't follow. Why wouldn't it work? It seems to me that a biased random walk down a gradient is about as universal as it gets. A bit like asking why walking uphill eventually results in you arriving at the top.
It wouldn't work if your landscape has more local minima than atoms in the known universe (which it does) and only some of them are good. Neural networks can easily fail, but there's a lot of things one can do to help ensure it works.
A funny thing is, in very high-dimensional space, like millions and billions of parameters, the chance that you'd get stuck in a local minima is extremely small. Think about it like this, to be stuck in a local minima in 2D, you only need 2 gradient components to be zero, in higher dimension, you'd need every single one of them, millions up millions of them, to be all zero. You'd only need 1 single gradient component to be non-zero and SGD can get you out of it. Now, SGD is a stochastic walk on that manifold, not entirely random, but rather noisy, the chance that you somehow walk into a local minima is very very low, unless that is a "really good" local minima, in a sense that it dominates all other local minimas in its neighborhood.
You are essentially correct, which is why stochastic gradient optimizers induce a low-sharpness bias. However, there is an awful lot more that complicates things. There are plenty of wide minima that it can get stuck in far away from where people typically initialise, so the initialisation scheme proves extremely important (but is mostly done for you).
Perhaps more important, just because it is easy to escape any local minimum does not mean that there is necessarily a trend towards a really good optimum, as it can just bounce between a bunch of really bad ones for a long time. This actually happens almost all the time if you try to design your entire architecture from scratch, e.g. highly connected networks. People who are new to the field sometimes don't seem to understand why SGD doesn't just always fix everything; this is why. You need very strong inductive biases in your architecture design to ensure that the loss (which is data-dependent so you cannot ascertain this property a priori) exhibits a global bowl-like shape (we often call this a 'funnel') to provide a general trajectory for the optimizer toward good solutions. Sometimes this only works for some optimizers and not others.
This is why architecture design is something of an art form, and explaining "why neural networks work so well" is a complex question involving a ton of parts, all of which contribute in meaningful ways. There are often plenty of counterexamples to any simpler explanation.
Ok but it's already known that you shouldn't initialize your network parameters to a single constant and instead initialize the parameters with random numbers.
Both you and the comment above are correct; initializing with iid elements ensures that correlations are not disastrous for training, but strong correlations are baked into the weights during training, so pretty much anything could potentially happen.
Not a mathematician so I’m immediately out of my depth here (and butchering terminology), but it seems, intuitively, like the presence of a massive amount of local minima wouldn’t really be relevant for gradient descent. A given local minimum would need to have a “well” at least be as large as your step size to reasonably capture your descent.
E.g. you could land perfectly on a local minima but you won’t stay the unless your step size was minute or the minima was quite substantial.
I believe what was meant was that assuming local minima of a sufficient size to capture your probe, given a sufficiently high density of those, you become extremely likely to get stuck. A counterpoint regarding dimensionality is made by the comment adjacent to yours.
Do neural networks work better than other models? They can definitely model a wider class of problems than traditional ML models (images being the canonical example). However, I thought where a like for like comparison was possible they tend to worse than gradient boosting.
Gradient boosting handles tabular data better than neural networks, often because the structure is simpler, and it becomes more of an issue to deal with the noise. You can do like-to-like comparisons between them for unstructured data like images, audio, video, text, and a well-designed NN will mop the floor with gradient boosting. This is because to handle that sort of data, you need to encode some form of bias around expected convolutional patterns in the data, or you won't get anywhere. Both CNNs and transformers do this.
- It's not gradient boosting per se that's good on tabular data, it's trees. Other fitting methods with trees as the model are also usually superior to NNs on tabular data.
- Trees are better on tabular data because they encode a useful inductive bias that NNs currently do not. Just like CNNs or ViTs are better on images because they encode spatial locality as an inductive bias.
Absolutely agree on both counts. Gradient boosting is the most commonly known and most successful variant, but it's the decision tree structure that is the underlying architecture there. Decision trees don't have the same "implicit training bias" phenomenon that neural networks have though, so all of this is just model bias in the classical statistical sense.
On tabular datasets less than ~250k samples, tabular foundation models now outperform boosting. Of course it remains to be seen how they'll scale to significantly larger datasets as the models improve.
In my opinion current research should focus on revisiting older concepts to figure out if they can be applied to transformers.
Transformers are superior "database" encodings as the hype about LLMs points out, but there have been promising ML models that were focusing on memory parts for their niche use cases, which could be promising concepts if we could make them work with attention matrixes and/or use the frequency projection idea on their neuron weights.
The way RNNs evolved to LSTMs, GRUs, and eventually DNCs was pretty interesting to me. In my own implementations and use cases I wasn't able to reproduce Deepmind's claims in the DNC memory related parts. Back at the time the "seeking heads" idea of attention matrixes wasn't there yet, maybe there's a way to build better read/write/access/etc gates now.
No it isn't, and it's frustrating when the "common wisdom" tries to boil it down to this. If this was true, then the models with "infinitely many" parameters would be amazing. What about just training a gigantic two-layer network? There is a huge amount of work trying to engineer training procedures that work well.
The actual reason is due to complex biases that arise from the interaction of network architectures and the optimizers and persist in the regime where data scales proportionally to model size. The multiscale nature of the data induces neural scaling laws that enable better performance than any other class of models can hope to achieve.
> The actual reason is due to complex biases that arise from the interaction of network architectures and the optimizers and persist in the regime where data scales proportionally to model size. The multiscale nature of the data induces neural scaling laws that enable better performance than any other class of models can hope to achieve.
That’s a lot of words to say that, if you encode a class of things as numbers, there’s a formula somewhere that can approximate an instance of that class. It works for linear regression and works as well for neural network. The key thing here is approximation.
No, it is relatively few words to quickly touch on several different concepts that go well beyond basic approximation theory.
I can construct a Gaussian process model (essentially fancy linear regression) that will fit _all_ of my medical image data _exactly_, but it will perform like absolute rubbish for determining tumor presence compared to if I trained a convolutional neural network on the same data and problem _and_ perfectly fit the data.
I could even train a fully connected network on the same data and problem, get any degree of fit you like, and it would still be rubbish.
Also massive human work done on them, that wasn't done before.
Data labeling is pretty big industry in some countries and I guess dropping 200 kilodollars on labeling is beyond the reach of most academics, even if they would not care about ethics of that.
normally more parameters leads to overfitting (like fitting a polynomial to points), but neural nets are for some reason not as susceptible to that and can scale well with more parameters.
Thats been my understanding of the crux of mystery.
Would love to be corrected by someone more knowledgable though
This absolutely was the crux of the (first) mystery, and I would argue that "deep learning theory" really only took off once it recognized this. There are other mysteries too, like the feasibility of transfer learning, neural scaling laws, and now more recently, in-context learning.
The skepticism I'm seeing in the comments really highlights how little of this work is trickling down to the public, which is very sad to see. While it can offer few mathematical mechanisms to infer optimal network design yet (mostly because just trying stuff empirically is often faster than going through the theory, so it is more common to retroactively infer things), the question "why do neural networks work better than other models?" is getting pretty close to a solid answer. Problem is, that was never the question people seem to have ever really been interested in, so the field now has to figure out what questions we ask next.