Labeling a training set is often expensive and susceptible to errors, making the design of robust loss functions for label noise an important problem. The symmetry condition provides theoretical guarantees for robustness to such noise. In this work, we study a symmetrization method arising from the unique decomposition of any multi-class loss function into a symmetric component and a class-insensitive term. In particular, symmetrizing the cross-entropy loss leads to a linear multi-class extension of the unhinged loss. Unlike in the binary case, the multi-class version must have specific coefficients in order to satisfy the symmetry condition. Under suitable assumptions, we show that this multi-class unhinged loss is the unique convex multi-class symmetric loss. We also show that it has a fundamental local role: the linear approximation of any symmetric loss around score vectors with equal components is equivalent to the multi-class unhinged loss. We then introduce SGCE and alpha-MAE, two loss functions that interpolate between the multi-class unhinged loss and the Mean Absolute Error while allowing control of the beta-smoothness of the loss. Experiments on standard noisy-label benchmarks show competitive performance compared with existing robust loss functions.

What can linearized neural networks actually say about generalization? As mentioned in the main text, all our models are trained using the same scheme which was selected without any hyperparameter tuning, besides ensuring a good performance on CIFAR2 for the neural networks. Namely, we train using stochastic gradient descent (SGD) to optimize a binary crossentropy loss, with a decaying learning rate starting at 0.05 and momentum set to 0.9. Furthermore, we use a batch size of 128and train for a 100epochs. This is enough to obtain close-to-zero training losses for the neural networks, and converge to a stable test accuracy in the case of the linearized models1.

For certain infinitely-wide neural networks, the neural tangent kernel (NTK) theory fully characterizes generalization, but for the networks used in practice, the empirical NTK only provides a rough first-order approximation. Still, a growing body of work keeps leveraging this approximation to successfully analyze important deep learning phenomena and design algorithms for new applications. In our work, we provide strong empirical evidence to determine the practical validity of such approximation by conducting a systematic comparison of the behavior of different neural networks and their linear approximations on different tasks. We show that the linear approximations can indeed rank the learning complexity of certain tasks for neural networks, even when they achieve very different performances. However, in contrast to what was previously reported, we discover that neural networks do not always perform better than their kernel approximations, and reveal that the performance gap heavily depends on architecture, dataset size and training task. We discover that networks overfit to these tasks mostly due to the evolution of their kernel during training, thus, revealing a new type of implicit bias.

Code is at this URL.

We wish to thank all of the reviewers for their time and thorough reading of our paper! We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions regarding clarity. We have added the suggested summary sentence "the key We started with binary sentiment classification, but are actively working on more tasks. RNN hidden states onto the top two PCs for two different input sequences that differ only by two tokens (replacing ' The trajectories start out the same as the initial tokens are identical. We have added a footnote noting this in the main text.

For certain infinitely-wide neural networks, the neural tangent kernel (NTK) theory fully characterizes generalization, but for the networks used in practice, the empirical NTK only provides a rough first-order approximation. Still, a growing body of work keeps leveraging this approximation to successfully analyze important deep learning phenomena and design algorithms for new applications. In our work, we provide strong empirical evidence to determine the practical validity of such approximation by conducting a systematic comparison of the behavior of different neural networks and their linear approximations on different tasks. We show that the linear approximations can indeed rank the learning complexity of certain tasks for neural networks, even when they achieve very different performances. However, in contrast to what was previously reported, we discover that neural networks do not always perform better than their kernel approximations, and reveal that the performance gap heavily depends on architecture, dataset size and training task. We discover that networks overfit to these tasks mostly due to the evolution of their kernel during training, thus, revealing a new type of implicit bias.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/