Not All Explanations for Deep Learning Phenomena Are Equally Valuable
Alan Jeffares, Mihaela van der Schaar

TL;DR
This paper critiques the focus on isolated deep learning phenomena, arguing they often lack real-world relevance but can still help refine general theories, and offers recommendations for more pragmatic research approaches.
Contribution
It challenges the value of studying isolated phenomena without real-world evidence and advocates for using them to improve broad deep learning theories.
Findings
Many phenomena lack evidence in real-world applications
Current research often treats phenomena as isolated puzzles
Proposes practical guidelines for future deep learning research
Abstract
Developing a better understanding of surprising or counterintuitive phenomena has constituted a significant portion of deep learning research in recent years. These include double descent, grokking, and the lottery ticket hypothesis -- among many others. Works in this area often develop ad hoc hypotheses attempting to explain these observed phenomena on an isolated, case-by-case basis. This position paper asserts that, in many prominent cases, there is little evidence to suggest that these phenomena appear in real-world applications and these efforts may be inefficient in driving progress in the broader field. Consequently, we argue against viewing them as isolated puzzles that require bespoke resolutions or explanations. However, despite this, we suggest that deep learning phenomena do still offer research value by providing unique settings in which we can refine our broad explanatory…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs · Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
