State-of-the-art neural networks can be trained to become remarkable solutions to many problems. But while these architectures can express symbolic, perfect solutions, trained models often arrive at approximations instead. We show that the choice of regularization method plays a crucial role: when trained on formal languages with standard regularization ($L_1$, $L_2$, or none), expressive architectures not only fail to converge to correct solutions but are actively pushed away from perfect initializations. In contrast, applying the Minimum Description Length (MDL) principle to balance model complexity with data fit provides a theoretically grounded regularization method. Using MDL, perfect solutions are selected over approximations, independently of the optimization algorithm. We propose that unlike existing regularization techniques, MDL introduces the appropriate inductive bias to effectively counteract overfitting and promote generalization.

Neural networks offer good approximation to many tasks but consistently fail to reach perfect generalization, even when theoretical work shows that such perfect solutions can be expressed by certain architectures. Using the task of formal language learning, we focus on one simple formal language and show that the theoretically correct solution is in fact not an optimum of commonly used objectives -- even with regularization techniques that according to common wisdom should lead to simple weights and good generalization (L1, L2) or other meta-heuristics (early-stopping, dropout). However, replacing standard targets with the Minimum Description Length objective (MDL) results in the correct solution being an optimum.