This motivation is particularly relevant given the perhaps surprising observation that a wide variety of pruning approaches increase test accuracy despite sometimes massivereductions inparameter counts.

The proof has the following steps.(I)Any

Normalization layers (e.g., Batch Normalization, Layer Normalization) were introduced to help with optimization difficulties in very deep nets, but they clearly also help generalization, even in not-so-deep nets. Motivated by the long-held belief that flatter minima lead to better generalization, this paper gives mathematical analysis and supporting experiments suggesting that normalization (together with accompanying weight-decay) encourages GD to reduce the sharpness of loss surface. Here ``sharpness'' is carefully defined given that the loss is scale-invariant, a known consequence of normalization. Specifically, for a fairly broad class of neural nets with normalization, our theory explains how GD with a finite learning rate enters the so-called Edge of Stability (EoS) regime, and characterizes the trajectory of GD in this regime via a continuous sharpness-reduction flow.

Machine learning models that are developed to be invariant under certain types of data transformations have shown improved generalization in practice. However, a principled understanding of why invariance benefits generalization is limited. Given a dataset, there is often no principled way to select suitable data transformations under which model invariance guarantees better generalization. This paper studies the generalization benefit of model invariance by introducing the sample cover induced by transformations, i.e., a representative subset of a dataset that can approximately recover the whole dataset using transformations. For any data transformations, we provide refined generalization bounds for invariant models based on the sample cover. We also characterize the suitability of a set of data transformations by the sample covering number induced by transformations, i.e., the smallest size of its induced sample covers. We show that we may tighten the generalization bounds for suitable transformations that have a small sample covering number. In addition, our proposed sample covering number can be empirically evaluated and thus provides a guidance for selecting transformations to develop model invariance for better generalization. In experiments on multiple datasets, we evaluate sample covering numbers for some commonly used transformations and show that the smaller sample covering number for a set of transformations (e.g., the 3D-view transformation) indicates a smaller gap between the test and training error for invariant models, which verifies our propositions.

However, a principled understanding of why invariance benefits generalization is limited. Given a dataset, there is often no principled way to select "suitable" data transformations under which model invariance guarantees better generalization.

This motivation is particularly relevant given the perhaps surprising observation that a wide variety of pruning approaches increase test accuracy despite sometimes massive reductions in parameter counts.

Normalization layers (e.g., Batch Normalization, Layer Normalization) were introduced to help with optimization difficulties in very deep nets, but they clearly also help generalization, even in not-so-deep nets. Motivated by the long-held belief that flatter minima lead to better generalization, this paper gives mathematical analysis and supporting experiments suggesting that normalization (together with accompanying weight-decay) encourages GD to reduce the sharpness of loss surface. Here sharpness'' is carefully defined given that the loss is scale-invariant, a known consequence of normalization. Specifically, for a fairly broad class of neural nets with normalization, our theory explains how GD with a finite learning rate enters the so-called Edge of Stability (EoS) regime, and characterizes the trajectory of GD in this regime via a continuous sharpness-reduction flow.

Machine learning models that are developed to be invariant under certain types of data transformations have shown improved generalization in practice. However, a principled understanding of why invariance benefits generalization is limited. Given a dataset, there is often no principled way to select "suitable" data transformations under which model invariance guarantees better generalization. This paper studies the generalization benefit of model invariance by introducing the sample cover induced by transformations, i.e., a representative subset of a dataset that can approximately recover the whole dataset using transformations. For any data transformations, we provide refined generalization bounds for invariant models based on the sample cover.