The author's preface gives an outline: "This book is about weakconvergence methods in metric spaces, with applications sufficient to show their power and utility. The Introduction motivates the definitions and indicates how the theory will yield solutions to problems arising outside it. Chapter 1 sets out the basic general theorems, which are then specialized in Chapter 2 to the space C[0, l ] of continuous functions on the unit interval and in Chapter 3 to the space D [0, 1 ] of functions with discontinuities of the first kind. The results of the first three chapters are used in Chapter 4 to derive a variety of limit theorems for dependent sequences of random variables. " The book develops and expands on Donsker's 1951 and 1952 papers on the invariance principle and empirical distributions. The basic random variables remain real-valued although, of course, measures on C[0, l ] and D[0, l ] are vitally used. Within this framework, there are various possibilities for a different and apparently better treatment of the material. More of the general theory of weak convergence of probabilities on separable metric spaces would be useful. Metrizability of the convergence is not brought up until late in the Appendix. The close relation of the Prokhorov metric and a metric for convergence in probability is (hence) not mentioned (see V. Strassen, Ann. Math. Statist. 36 (1965), 423-439; the reviewer, ibid. 39 (1968), 1563-1572). This relation would illuminate and organize such results as Theorems 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4 which give isolated, ad hoc connections between weak convergence of measures and nearness in probability. In the middle of p. 16, it should be noted that C*(S) consists of signed measures which need only be finitely additive if 5 is not compact. On p. 239, where the author twice speaks of separable subsets having nonmeasurable cardinal, he means "discrete" rather than "separable." Theorem 1.4 is Ulam's theorem that a Borel probability on a complete separable metric space is tight. Theorem 1 of Appendix 3 weakens completeness to topological completeness. After mentioning that probabilities on the rationals are tight, the author says it is an

Convergence of probability measures

At initialization, artificial neural networks (ANNs) are equivalent to Gaussian processes in the infinite-width limit, thus connecting them to kernel methods. We prove that the evolution of an ANN during training can also be described by a kernel: during gradient descent on the parameters of an ANN, the network function (which maps input vectors to output vectors) follows the so-called kernel gradient associated with a new object, which we call the Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK). This kernel is central to describe the generalization features of ANNs. While the NTK is random at initialization and varies during training, in the infinite-width limit it converges to an explicit limiting kernel and stays constant during training. This makes it possible to study the training of ANNs in function space instead of parameter space. Convergence of the training can then be related to the positive-definiteness of the limiting NTK. We then focus on the setting of least-squares regression and show that in the infinite-width limit, the network function follows a linear differential equation during training. The convergence is fastest along the largest kernel principal components of the input data with respect to the NTK, hence suggesting a theoretical motivation for early stopping. Finally we study the NTK numerically, observe its behavior for wide networks, and compare it to the infinite-width limit.

/pdf/neural-tangent-kernel-convergence-and-generalization-in-3ks0qgekbr.pdf

Neural Tangent Kernel: Convergence and Generalization in Neural Networks

5分で分かる!? 有名論文ナナメ読み：Jacob Devlin et al. : BERT : Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding

Machine learning (ML) encompasses a broad range of algorithms and modeling tools used for a vast array of data processing tasks, which has entered most scientific disciplines in recent years. This article reviews in a selective way the recent research on the interface between machine learning and the physical sciences. This includes conceptual developments in ML motivated by physical insights, applications of machine learning techniques to several domains in physics, and cross fertilization between the two fields. After giving a basic notion of machine learning methods and principles, examples are described of how statistical physics is used to understand methods in ML. This review then describes applications of ML methods in particle physics and cosmology, quantum many-body physics, quantum computing, and chemical and material physics. Research and development into novel computing architectures aimed at accelerating ML are also highlighted. Each of the sections describe recent successes as well as domain-specific methodology and challenges.

Machine learning and the physical sciences

Large language models have been shown to achieve remarkable performance across a variety of natural language tasks using few-shot learning , which drastically reduces the number of task-speciﬁc training examples needed to adapt the model to a particular application. To further our understanding of the impact of scale on few-shot learning, we trained a 540-billion parameter, densely activated, Transformer language model, which we call Pathways Language Model (PaLM). We trained PaLM on 6144 TPU v4 chips using Pathways, a new ML system which enables highly eﬃcient training across multiple TPU Pods. We demonstrate continued beneﬁts of scaling by achieving state-of-the-art few-shot learning results on hundreds of language understanding and generation benchmarks. On a number of these tasks, PaLM 540B achieves breakthrough performance, outperforming the ﬁnetuned state-of-the-art on a suite of multi-step reasoning tasks, and outperforming average human performance on the recently released BIG-bench benchmark. A signiﬁcant number of BIG-bench tasks showed discontinuous improvements from model scale, meaning that performance steeply increased as we scaled to our largest model. PaLM also has strong capabilities in multilingual tasks and source code generation, which we demonstrate on a wide array of benchmarks. We additionally provide a comprehensive analysis on bias and toxicity, and study the extent of training data memorization with respect to model scale. Finally, we discuss the ethical considerations related to large language models and discuss potential mitigation strategies.

PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways

Neural Tangents is a library for working with infinite-width neural networks. It provides a high-level API for specifying complex and hierarchical neural network architectures. These networks can then be trained and evaluated either at finite-width as usual, or in their infinite-width limit. For the infinite-width networks, Neural Tangents performs exact inference either via Bayes' rule or gradient descent, and generates the corresponding Neural Network Gaussian Process and Neural Tangent kernels. Additionally, Neural Tangents provides tools to study gradient descent training dynamics of wide but finite networks. The entire library runs out-of-the-box on CPU, GPU, or TPU. All computations can be automatically distributed over multiple accelerators with near-linear scaling in the number of devices. In addition to the repository below, we provide an accompanying interactive Colab notebook at https://colab.sandbox.google.com/github/neural-tangents/neural-tangents/blob/master/notebooks/neural_tangents_cookbook.ipynb

/pdf/neural-tangents-fast-and-easy-infinite-neural-networks-in-1m2jtrgu0s.pdf

Neural Tangents: Fast and Easy Infinite Neural Networks in Python

In practice it is often found that large over-parameterized neural networks generalize better than their smaller counterparts, an observation that appears to conflict with classical notions of function complexity, which typically favor smaller models In this work, we investigate this tension between complexity and generalization through an extensive empirical exploration of two natural metrics of complexity related to sensitivity to input perturbations Our experiments survey thousands of models with various fully-connected architectures, optimizers, and other hyper-parameters, as well as four different image classification datasets 
We find that trained neural networks are more robust to input perturbations in the vicinity of the training data manifold, as measured by the norm of the input-output Jacobian of the network, and that it correlates well with generalization We further establish that factors associated with poor generalization $-$ such as full-batch training or using random labels $-$ correspond to lower robustness, while factors associated with good generalization $-$ such as data augmentation and ReLU non-linearities $-$ give rise to more robust functions Finally, we demonstrate how the input-output Jacobian norm can be predictive of generalization at the level of individual test points

Sensitivity and Generalization in Neural Networks: an Empirical Study

It has long been known that a single-layer fully-connected neural network with an i.i.d. prior over its parameters is equivalent to a Gaussian process (GP), in the limit of infinite network width. This correspondence enables exact Bayesian inference for infinite width neural networks on regression tasks by means of evaluating the corresponding GP. Recently, kernel functions which mimic multi-layer random neural networks have been developed, but only outside of a Bayesian framework. As such, previous work has not identified that these kernels can be used as covariance functions for GPs and allow fully Bayesian prediction with a deep neural network. 
In this work, we derive the exact equivalence between infinitely wide deep networks and GPs. We further develop a computationally efficient pipeline to compute the covariance function for these GPs. We then use the resulting GPs to perform Bayesian inference for wide deep neural networks on MNIST and CIFAR-10. We observe that trained neural network accuracy approaches that of the corresponding GP with increasing layer width, and that the GP uncertainty is strongly correlated with trained network prediction error. We further find that test performance increases as finite-width trained networks are made wider and more similar to a GP, and thus that GP predictions typically outperform those of finite-width networks. Finally we connect the performance of these GPs to the recent theory of signal propagation in random neural networks.

Deep Neural Networks as Gaussian Processes

We perform a careful, thorough, and large scale empirical study of the correspondence between wide neural networks and kernel methods. By doing so, we resolve a variety of open questions related to the study of infinitely wide neural networks. Our experimental results include: kernel methods outperform fully-connected finite-width networks, but underperform convolutional finite width networks; neural network Gaussian process (NNGP) kernels frequently outperform neural tangent (NT) kernels; centered and ensembled finite networks have reduced posterior variance and behave more similarly to infinite networks; weight decay and the use of a large learning rate break the correspondence between finite and infinite networks; the NTK parameterization outperforms the standard parameterization for finite width networks; diagonal regularization of kernels acts similarly to early stopping; floating point precision limits kernel performance beyond a critical dataset size; regularized ZCA whitening improves accuracy; finite network performance depends non-monotonically on width in ways not captured by double descent phenomena; equivariance of CNNs is only beneficial for narrow networks far from the kernel regime. Our experiments additionally motivate an improved layer-wise scaling for weight decay which improves generalization in finite-width networks. Finally, we develop improved best practices for using NNGP and NT kernels for prediction, including a novel ensembling technique. Using these best practices we achieve state-of-the-art results on CIFAR-10 classification for kernels corresponding to each architecture class we consider.

/pdf/finite-versus-infinite-neural-networks-an-empirical-study-53dl31mpgc.pdf

Finite Versus Infinite Neural Networks: an Empirical Study

There is a previously identified equivalence between wide fully connected neural networks (FCNs) and Gaussian processes (GPs). This equivalence enables, for instance, test set predictions that would have resulted from a fully Bayesian, infinitely wide trained FCN to be computed without ever instantiating the FCN, but by instead evaluating the corresponding GP. In this work, we derive an analogous equivalence for multi-layer convolutional neural networks (CNNs) both with and without pooling layers, and achieve state of the art results on CIFAR10 for GPs without trainable kernels. We also introduce a Monte Carlo method to estimate the GP corresponding to a given neural network architecture, even in cases where the analytic form has too many terms to be computationally feasible. 
Surprisingly, in the absence of pooling layers, the GPs corresponding to CNNs with and without weight sharing are identical. As a consequence, translation equivariance, beneficial in finite channel CNNs trained with stochastic gradient descent (SGD), is guaranteed to play no role in the Bayesian treatment of the infinite channel limit - a qualitative difference between the two regimes that is not present in the FCN case. We confirm experimentally, that while in some scenarios the performance of SGD-trained finite CNNs approaches that of the corresponding GPs as the channel count increases, with careful tuning SGD-trained CNNs can significantly outperform their corresponding GPs, suggesting advantages from SGD training compared to fully Bayesian parameter estimation.

Roman Novak

Papers

Neural Tangents: Fast and Easy Infinite Neural Networks in Python

Sensitivity and Generalization in Neural Networks: an Empirical Study

Deep Neural Networks as Gaussian Processes

Finite Versus Infinite Neural Networks: an Empirical Study

Bayesian Deep Convolutional Networks with Many Channels are Gaussian Processes