Conventional wisdom attributes the mysterious generalization abilities of overparameterized neural networks to gradient descent (and its variants). The recent volume hypothesis challenges this view: it posits that these generalization abilities persist even when gradient descent is replaced by Guess & Check (G&C), i.e., by randomly drawing weight settings until one that fits the training data is found. The validity of the volume hypothesis for wide and deep neural networks remains an open question. In this paper, we theoretically investigate this question for matrix factorization (with linear and non-linear activation): a canonical testbed in neural network theory. We first prove that generalization under G&C deteriorates with increasing width, establishing what is, to our knowledge, the first canonical case where G&C is provably inferior to gradient descent. Conversely, we prove that generalization under G&C improves with increasing depth, revealing a stark contrast between wide and deep networks, which we further validate empirically. These findings suggest that even in simple settings, there may not be a simple answer to the question of whether neural networks need gradient descent to generalize well.

Understanding neural network's (NN) generalizability remains a central question in deep learning research. The special phenomenon of grokking, where NNs abruptly generalize long after the training performance reaches a near-perfect level, offers a unique window to investigate the underlying mechanisms of NNs' generalizability. Here we propose an interpretation for grokking by framing it as a computational glass relaxation: viewing NNs as a physical system where parameters are the degrees of freedom and train loss is the system energy, we find memorization process resembles a rapid cooling of liquid into non-equilibrium glassy state at low temperature and the later generalization is like a slow relaxation towards a more stable configuration. This mapping enables us to sample NNs' Boltzmann entropy (density of states) landscape as a function of training loss and test accuracy.