# Scaling description of generalization with number of parameters in deep learning

## TL;DR

This paper explains why over-parameterized neural networks continue to improve in generalization as their size increases, using a new framework based on the Neural Tangent Kernel and finite-size fluctuations.

## Contribution

It introduces a novel theoretical framework connecting neural network size, fluctuations, and generalization error, resolving the paradox of improving generalization in over-parameterized models.

## Key findings

- Generalization error decays as a power law with network size.
- A jamming transition at a critical size causes divergence in network parameters.
- Empirical validation on MNIST and CIFAR datasets supports the theory.

## Abstract

Supervised deep learning involves the training of neural networks with a large number $N$ of parameters. For large enough $N$, in the so-called over-parametrized regime, one can essentially fit the training data points. Sparsity-based arguments would suggest that the generalization error increases as $N$ grows past a certain threshold $N^{*}$. Instead, empirical studies have shown that in the over-parametrized regime, generalization error keeps decreasing with $N$. We resolve this paradox through a new framework. We rely on the so-called Neural Tangent Kernel, which connects large neural nets to kernel methods, to show that the initialization causes finite-size random fluctuations $\|f_{N}-\bar{f}_{N}\|\sim N^{-1/4}$ of the neural net output function $f_{N}$ around its expectation $\bar{f}_{N}$. These affect the generalization error $\epsilon_{N}$ for classification: under natural assumptions, it decays to a plateau value $\epsilon_{\infty}$ in a power-law fashion $\sim N^{-1/2}$. This description breaks down at a so-called jamming transition $N=N^{*}$. At this threshold, we argue that $\|f_{N}\|$ diverges. This result leads to a plausible explanation for the cusp in test error known to occur at $N^{*}$. Our results are confirmed by extensive empirical observations on the MNIST and CIFAR image datasets. Our analysis finally suggests that, given a computational envelope, the smallest generalization error is obtained using several networks of intermediate sizes, just beyond $N^{*}$, and averaging their outputs.