To grok or not to grok: Disentangling generalization and memorization on corrupted algorithmic datasets

TL;DR

This paper investigates how neural networks can memorize corrupted data while still generalizing well, and how regularization techniques help promote generalization by suppressing memorization, with insights into training dynamics and neuron behavior.

Contribution

It provides an interpretable model demonstrating the coexistence of memorization and generalization, and explains how regularization methods influence this balance in neural networks.

Findings

Networks can memorize corrupted labels and still generalize.

Pruning memorizing neurons improves uncorrupted data accuracy.

Regularization methods promote generalization by suppressing memorization.

Abstract

Robust generalization is a major challenge in deep learning, particularly when the number of trainable parameters is very large. In general, it is very difficult to know if the network has memorized a particular set of examples or understood the underlying rule (or both). Motivated by this challenge, we study an interpretable model where generalizing representations are understood analytically, and are easily distinguishable from the memorizing ones. Namely, we consider multi-layer perceptron (MLP) and Transformer architectures trained on modular arithmetic tasks, where ($\xi \cdot 100\%$) of labels are corrupted (\emph{i.e.} some results of the modular operations in the training set are incorrect). We show that (i) it is possible for the network to memorize the corrupted labels \emph{and} achieve $100\%$ generalization at the same time; (ii) the memorizing neurons can be identified and pruned, lowering the accuracy on corrupted data and improving the accuracy on uncorrupted data; (iii) regularization methods such as weight decay, dropout and BatchNorm force the network to ignore the corrupted data during optimization, and achieve $100\%$ accuracy on the uncorrupted dataset; and (iv) the effect of these regularization methods is (``mechanistically'') interpretable: weight decay and dropout force all the neurons to learn generalizing representations, while BatchNorm de-amplifies the output of memorizing neurons and amplifies the output of the generalizing ones. Finally, we show that in the presence of regularization, the training dynamics involves two consecutive stages: first, the network undergoes \emph{grokking} dynamics reaching high train \emph{and} test accuracy; second, it unlearns the memorizing representations, where the train accuracy suddenly jumps from $100\%$ to $100 (1-\xi)\%$.