Reconciling modern machine learning and the bias-variance trade-off

The question of generalization in machine learning---how algorithms are able to learn predictors from a training sample to make accurate predictions out-of-sample---is revisited in light of the recent breakthroughs in modern machine learning technology. The classical approach to understanding generalization is based on bias-variance trade-offs, where model complexity is carefully calibrated so that the fit on the training sample reflects performance out-of-sample. However, it is now common practice to fit highly complex models like deep neural networks to data with (nearly) zero training error, and yet these interpolating predictors are observed to have good out-of-sample accuracy even for noisy data. How can the classical understanding of generalization be reconciled with these observations from modern machine learning practice? In this paper, we bridge the two regimes by exhibiting a new "double descent" risk curve that extends the traditional U-shaped bias-variance curve beyond the point of interpolation. Specifically, the curve shows that as soon as the model complexity is high enough to achieve interpolation on the training sample---a point that we call the "interpolation threshold"---the risk of suitably chosen interpolating predictors from these models can, in fact, be decreasing as the model complexity increases, often below the risk achieved using non-interpolating models. The double descent risk curve is demonstrated for a broad range of models, including neural networks and random forests, and a mechanism for producing this behavior is posited.

To understand deep learning we need to understand kernel learning

Generalization performance of classifiers in deep learning has recently become a subject of intense study. Deep models, typically over-parametrized, tend to fit the training data exactly. Despite this "overfitting", they perform well on test data, a phenomenon not yet fully understood. The first point of our paper is that strong performance of overfitted classifiers is not a unique feature of deep learning. Using six real-world and two synthetic datasets, we establish experimentally that kernel machines trained to have zero classification or near zero regression error perform very well on test data, even when the labels are corrupted with a high level of noise. We proceed to give a lower bound on the norm of zero loss solutions for smooth kernels, showing that they increase nearly exponentially with data size. We point out that this is difficult to reconcile with the existing generalization bounds. Moreover, none of the bounds produce non-trivial results for interpolating solutions. Second, we show experimentally that (non-smooth) Laplacian kernels easily fit random labels, a finding that parallels results for ReLU neural networks. In contrast, fitting noisy data requires many more epochs for smooth Gaussian kernels. Similar performance of overfitted Laplacian and Gaussian classifiers on test, suggests that generalization is tied to the properties of the kernel function rather than the optimization process. Certain key phenomena of deep learning are manifested similarly in kernel methods in the modern "overfitted" regime. The combination of the experimental and theoretical results presented in this paper indicates a need for new theoretical ideas for understanding properties of classical kernel methods. We argue that progress on understanding deep learning will be difficult until more tractable "shallow" kernel methods are better understood.