Exact, Tractable Gauss-Newton Optimization in Deep Reversible Architectures Reveal Poor Generalization

Second-order optimization has been shown to accelerate the training of deep neural networks in many applications, often yielding faster progress per iteration on the training loss compared to first-order optimizers. However, the generalization properties of second-order methods are still being debated. Theoretical investigations have proved difficult to carry out outside the tractable settings of heavily simplified model classes -- thus, the relevance of existing theories to practical deep learning applications remains unclear. Similarly, empirical studies in large-scale models and real datasets are significantly confounded by the necessity to approximate second-order updates in practice. It is often unclear whether the observed generalization behaviour arises specifically from the second-order nature of the parameter updates, or instead reflects the specific structured (e.g.\ Kronecker) approximations used or any damping-based interpolation towards first-order updates. Here, we show for the first time that exact Gauss-Newton (GN) updates take on a tractable form in a class of deep reversible architectures that are sufficiently expressive to be meaningfully applied to common benchmark datasets. We exploit this novel setting to study the training and generalization properties of the GN optimizer. We find that exact GN generalizes poorly. In the mini-batch training setting, this manifests as rapidly saturating progress even on the \emph{training} loss, with parameter updates found to overfit each mini-batchatch without producing the features that would support generalization to other mini-batches. We show that our experiments run in the ``lazy'' regime, in which the neural tangent kernel (NTK) changes very little during the course of training. This behaviour is associated with having no significant changes in neural representations, explaining the lack of generalization.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer 9txE7/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-05

Summary

The paper address the problem of efficient computation of Gauss-Newton (GN) updates in deep neural networks and in particular the question whether GN results in better generalization behavior than SGD. For this, the authors devise a neural architecture based on reversible NNs that incorporates additional linear bottleneck layers and in which by application of Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse the updates can be derived analytically and computed efficiently through Jacobian-vector products. Consequently, their analysis show that empirically GN struggles to learn useful representations on MNIST and CIFAR-10 with the selected model architecture and shows a significantly different feature learning behavior, i.e., they find a strong change in the NTK and high distances of the CKA wrt the initialization point, than SGD or Adam. The authors provide additional extensive ablations in the appendix and conclude that while GN yields fast convergence in the full batch setting it does not perform well in the stochastic setting in which it tends to overfit each individual batch rather than fitting to the data set.

Strengths

The paper concisely presents analytic and efficiently computable GN updates for a class of reversible neural networks. The analysis is through and well executed and the results are interesting in my opinion.

Weaknesses

The authors claim that their paper introduces exact updates for the first realistic application of neural networks. It is, however, unclear to me how realistic the constructed model is. Even though the invert bottleneck has been used in prior work (e.g., (Bachmann 2024)) these applications seem inflate the features only mildly while the authors seem to use a rather drastic inverse bottleneck to ensure linear independence. Hence, I am wondering how transferable the results actually are to architecture that are typically used and do not include random feature projections such as those used in the proposed work.

Questions

1. Could the authors elaborate on how much the choice of the inverse bottleneck layer and its number of random weights effects the results. 2. From what I understand most of the derivation in the main text focuses on the squared loss. However, the results in the experimental section focus solely on the cross-entropy loss which would include an additional Hessian term. Could the authors elaborate on this and are there any comparable results for the setting of squared loss settings such as on UCI regression data sets?

Rating

7

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

The paper adequately addressed the limitations.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-09

Re: Response

We thank the reviewer for the quick reply. We are glad our rebuttal could help clarify doubts, and that the reviewer is happy to raise the score. We however notice that the previous score of 6 has not been updated, so we kindly ask the reviewer to edit the score.

Reviewer 9txE2024-08-09

I’ll update the score at the end of the discussion phase to be able to accommodate for discussion.

Reviewer 9txE2024-08-12

I thank the authors again for their responses and have adjusted my score to an accept.

Reviewer TbBj6/10 · confidence 5/52024-07-12

Summary

In this work the authors use reversible neural networks to explore the benefits of exact Gauss-Newton optimization. They provide a theoretical framework for efficient Jacobian pseudoinverses in reversible networks. The authors then provide experiments on MNIST and CIFAR10 comparing SGD, ADAM, and SGD-GN training. They find that on a small (1024) subset of the dataset, full batch training, GN performs well; in the minibatch setting however GN training performs very poorly. In this setting SGD performs poorly in general. They also measure different feature learning metrics and show that GN training performs feature learning after most of the optimization has occured.

Strengths

The paper provides a very clean explanation of Gauss Newton training, and writing it down in terms of the pseudoinverse of the Jacobian is also a nice touch. The use of the reversible neural networks is very clever, and allow for study of the exact dynamics of interest rather than mere approximations. The experiments are basic but very clear, and the paper overall provides some intriguing preliminary results as well as a path towards future studies into GN training.

Weaknesses

The experiments section could be more full; for example, exploring the batch size dependence more fully (or, extending the full batch examples to more datapoints). I would also be interested to see how GN training performs in a setting where SGD works at least as well as ADAM. In addition, it would be helpful if more intuitions about the form of the pseudoinverse of J are brought into the main text.

Questions

What happens in the full batch experiments with batch size 2048? What happens if L2 regularization is added to the experiments?

Rating

6

Confidence

5

Soundness

4

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

No

Reviewer 5mk45/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-14

Summary

Even though the Gauss-Newton method is known as an effective second-order optimization, it suffers from intractability of Jacobian pseudoinverse computation. This paper proposes a fast and efficient optimization method which solves the intractability issue of the Jacobian pseudoinverse in Gauss-Newton optimization method in overparameterized neural networks. First, the Gauss-Newton optimization is re-interpreted as the functional view, corresponding to the gradient descent in a function space, taking the parameters as input. Then, with this perspective, the pseudoinverse can be replaced to the generalized inverse matrix, which yields the equivalent convergence properties, by applying the chain rule of the loss gradient into the functional loss gradient times the parameter derivative, and replace the functional loss gradient into the same form using the generalized inverse. Then, with this, the newly proposed exact Gauss-Newton method calculates the right inverse matrix of the Jacobian, with the RevMLP architecture. And the authors showed that this newly proposed Gauss-Newton method, however, deploys an overfitting property, compared to the Adam and SGD methods, showing worse test accuracy compared to the Adam and SGD optimization methods. Finally, this paper suggests several hypothesis, such as the minibatch overfitting and the feature learning on the NTK regime.

Strengths

* Even though this paper contains heavy mathematical details, this paper is clear to follow. * The proposed method enabled Gauss-Newton optimization method to be tractable in reversible nonlinear models. * With experiments, this showed that even though the final result did not achieve test-set improvements, the initial learning curve is much more steeply learned: this implies that the Gauss-Newton method is well applied.

Weaknesses

* The method is limited to reversible nonlinear models, which is a strongly restricted class of neural networks. Because of this restriction, the prediction performance is worse than conventional results. * The gain of replacing pseudoinverse to a generalized inverse is not clear. For further questions, please refer to Questions.

Questions

* Is assuming $\texttt{RevMLP}$, a reversible neural network, setting feasible to use? It seems that the accuracy with CIFAR-10 dataset has a scale of 70%, which is quite lower than our consensus. * I'd like to confirm that the reason of overfitting with respect to each minibatch. What happens if the minibatches are re-shuffled after each iteration? When the test set performance is saturated to minibatches, it will take advantage of the randomness of minibatches when shuffling. * With the CKA results, it is expected that the Gauss-Newton learning schemes, which becomes enabled by the reversibility of the model, is more effective when the model gets deeper. Then, what happens with the performance when the reversible model gets deeper or shallower? * How is the $V_{\ell}$ defined? I assumed that it is a class of random matrices, such as random Gaussian or random Fourier transform matrix. ==== * (Line 63) batchatches $\to$ batches * (Line 238) reversed $\to$ reversible?

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

2

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

N/A

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

End of discussion period

We kindly notify the reviewer that the discussion period is reaching an end. We believe we have addressed all the raised concerns, which has also helped us improve the paper, and we would be happy to receive feedback and answer any remaining doubt

Reviewer TbBj2024-08-08

Response to rebuttal

Thanks to the authors for their response; I appreciate the additional experiments. I will maintain my review score at this time.

Reviewer 9txE2024-08-09

Response

I have read the authors responses and reviews of fellow reviewers. I am very pleased about the rebuttal and will be happy to increase my score. I do not have additional questions to the authors.

Reviewer 5mk42024-08-14

Response

Thank you for the detailed and response. > __Question__\ > Importance of Reversible Networks My largest concern was that this method is limited to reversible networks. If using the reversible architecture is not useful, then this method would not be feasibly working. However, the authors seem to successfully argue the importance of the reversible networks. > CKA Analysis The CKA analysis in the full coupling layer, merging (14) and (15), the new findings on merging two layers on CKA analysis makes sense. I further understand the analysis and findings after the attached pdf, and recommend to include these figures into the main text. --- My largest concerns were (1) usefulness and feasibility of reversible network, and (2) correspondence between the analysis and conclusion, and both seem to be more resolved. So I adjust my rating.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC