The Barron Norm, Double Descent, and the Neural Tangent Kernel ICTP Summer School on Machine Learning — Lecture 5 (Day 7)
These notes cover the Day 7 lecture by Andrea Montanari. The first half completes the story of Barron spaces begun in Lecture 4: we give a concrete spectral characterization of the Barron norm via spherical harmonics, show when it is finite, and note its invariance under low-dimensional projections. The second half turns to the empirical phenomenon of double descent , introduces the gradient flow ODE for neural network training, and proves the key theorem on convergence to a linearized (NTK) model when the network is sufficiently wide.
Completing the Barron Norm: Spherical Harmonics Representation ¶ Recall from Lecture 4 the two-layer setting. We work on X = L 2 ( R d ; P ) X = L^2(\mathbb{R}^d; \mathbb{P}) X = L 2 ( R d ; P ) with P = U n i f ( d S d − 1 ) \mathbb{P} = \mathrm{Unif}(\sqrt{d}\,S^{d-1}) P = Unif ( d S d − 1 ) . The generator set is
G = { ± σ ( ⟨ w , ⋅ ⟩ ) : w ∈ R d , ∥ w ∥ 2 ≤ 1 } , G = \{\pm\sigma(\langle w, \cdot \rangle) : w \in \mathbb{R}^d,\; \|w\|_2 \leq 1\}, G = { ± σ (⟨ w , ⋅ ⟩) : w ∈ R d , ∥ w ∥ 2 ≤ 1 } , and the Barron norm is ∥ f ∥ σ = inf { ∣ μ ∣ : f ( ⋅ ) = ∫ σ ( ⟨ w , ⋅ ⟩ ) μ ( d w ) } = inf { λ > 0 : f / λ ∈ B G } \|f\|_\sigma = \inf\{|\mu| : f(\cdot) = \int \sigma(\langle w, \cdot \rangle)\,\mu(dw)\} = \inf\{\lambda > 0 : f/\lambda \in B_G\} ∥ f ∥ σ = inf { ∣ μ ∣ : f ( ⋅ ) = ∫ σ (⟨ w , ⋅ ⟩) μ ( d w )} = inf { λ > 0 : f / λ ∈ B G } .
A function f f f with ∥ f ∥ σ < ∞ \|f\|_\sigma < \infty ∥ f ∥ σ < ∞ can be represented using ≈ ∥ f ∥ σ 2 \approx \|f\|_\sigma^2 ≈ ∥ f ∥ σ 2 neurons with output-layer ℓ 1 \ell^1 ℓ 1 norm r 0 ≥ ∥ f ∥ σ r_0 \geq \|f\|_\sigma r 0 ≥ ∥ f ∥ σ .
Three Open Questions About ∥ f ∥ σ \|f\|_\sigma ∥ f ∥ σ ¶ What is ∥ f ∥ σ \|f\|_\sigma ∥ f ∥ σ concretely?
How do we compute it?
For which f f f is it finite?
Spherical Harmonics and the Gegenbauer Expansion ¶ The sphere S d − 1 S^{d-1} S d − 1 admits an orthonormal basis of spherical harmonics Y ℓ ( w ) = ( Y ℓ , 1 ( w ) , … , Y ℓ , D ( ℓ ) ( w ) ) Y_\ell(w) = (Y_{\ell,1}(w),\ldots,Y_{\ell,D(\ell)}(w)) Y ℓ ( w ) = ( Y ℓ , 1 ( w ) , … , Y ℓ , D ( ℓ ) ( w )) with D ( ℓ ) ≍ d ℓ / ℓ ! D(\ell) \asymp d^\ell/\ell! D ( ℓ ) ≍ d ℓ / ℓ ! , satisfying ∫ Y ℓ ( w ) Y ℓ ( w ) ⊤ ν 0 ( d w ) = I D ( ℓ ) \int Y_\ell(w)Y_\ell(w)^\top\nu_0(dw) = I_{D(\ell)} ∫ Y ℓ ( w ) Y ℓ ( w ) ⊤ ν 0 ( d w ) = I D ( ℓ ) and ⟨ Y ℓ , i , Y ℓ , j ⟩ = δ i j \langle Y_{\ell,i}, Y_{\ell,j}\rangle = \delta_{ij} ⟨ Y ℓ , i , Y ℓ , j ⟩ = δ ij . The only degree-ℓ \ell ℓ polynomial invariant under rotations around z 0 ∈ S d − 1 z_0 \in S^{d-1} z 0 ∈ S d − 1 is
x ↦ Q ℓ ( ⟨ z 0 , x ⟩ ) , Q ℓ ( ⟨ z 0 , x ⟩ ) = 1 D ( ℓ ) Y ℓ ( z 0 ) ⊤ Y ℓ ( x ) , x \mapsto Q_\ell(\langle z_0, x\rangle), \qquad Q_\ell(\langle z_0, x\rangle) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{D(\ell)}}\,Y_\ell(z_0)^\top Y_\ell(x), x ↦ Q ℓ (⟨ z 0 , x ⟩) , Q ℓ (⟨ z 0 , x ⟩) = D ( ℓ ) 1 Y ℓ ( z 0 ) ⊤ Y ℓ ( x ) , where Q ℓ Q_\ell Q ℓ is the Gegenbauer polynomial of degree ℓ \ell ℓ . As d → ∞ d\to\infty d → ∞ , Q ℓ ( v ) → H e ℓ ( d v ) Q_\ell(v) \to \mathrm{He}_\ell(\sqrt{d}\,v) Q ℓ ( v ) → He ℓ ( d v ) (Hermite polynomials).
Hermite Coefficients and Finiteness ¶ Working on d S d − 1 \sqrt{d}\,S^{d-1} d S d − 1 , any activation σ \sigma σ expands as
σ ( d ⟨ w , x ⟩ ) = ∑ ℓ = 0 ∞ σ ℓ Q ℓ ( ⟨ w , x ⟩ ) , σ ℓ = ∫ σ ( d v ) Q ℓ ( v ) ς d ( d v ) → d → ∞ ∫ σ ( u ) H e ℓ ( u ) γ ( d u ) . \sigma(\sqrt{d}\langle w,x\rangle) = \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty \sigma_\ell\,Q_\ell(\langle w,x\rangle), \qquad \sigma_\ell = \int \sigma(\sqrt{d}\,v)\,Q_\ell(v)\,\varsigma_d(dv) \xrightarrow{d\to\infty} \int \sigma(u)\,\mathrm{He}_\ell(u)\,\gamma(du). σ ( d ⟨ w , x ⟩) = ℓ = 0 ∑ ∞ σ ℓ Q ℓ (⟨ w , x ⟩) , σ ℓ = ∫ σ ( d v ) Q ℓ ( v ) ς d ( d v ) d → ∞ ∫ σ ( u ) He ℓ ( u ) γ ( d u ) . The Barron norm satisfies ∥ f ∥ σ ≤ ∑ ℓ ≥ 0 D ( ℓ ) σ ℓ 2 ∥ P ℓ f ∥ L 2 2 \|f\|_\sigma \leq \sqrt{\sum_{\ell\geq 0} \frac{D(\ell)}{\sigma_\ell^2}\|P_\ell f\|_{L^2}^2} ∥ f ∥ σ ≤ ∑ ℓ ≥ 0 σ ℓ 2 D ( ℓ ) ∥ P ℓ f ∥ L 2 2 .
If σ ℓ ≠ 0 \sigma_\ell \neq 0 σ ℓ = 0 for all ℓ ≥ 0 \ell \geq 0 ℓ ≥ 0 (which holds generically — e.g., for all non-polynomial activations), then ∥ f ∥ σ < ∞ \|f\|_\sigma < \infty ∥ f ∥ σ < ∞ on a dense subset of L 2 ( S d − 1 ) L^2(S^{d-1}) L 2 ( S d − 1 ) .
Degenerate case: If σ ( t ) = t \sigma(t) = t σ ( t ) = t (linear), then σ ℓ = 0 \sigma_\ell = 0 σ ℓ = 0 for ℓ ≠ 1 \ell \neq 1 ℓ = 1 and ∥ f ∥ σ = ∞ \|f\|_\sigma = \infty ∥ f ∥ σ = ∞ for any nonlinear f f f .
Invariance Under Low-Dimensional Projections ¶ If f ( x ) = φ ( U ⊤ x ) f(x) = \varphi(U^\top x) f ( x ) = φ ( U ⊤ x ) for U ∈ R d × k U \in \mathbb{R}^{d\times k} U ∈ R d × k orthonormal, then ∥ f ∥ σ = ∥ φ ∥ σ \|f\|_\sigma = \|\varphi\|_\sigma ∥ f ∥ σ = ∥ φ ∥ σ — the Barron norm is the same in d d d dimensions as in k k k . This means functions that depend only on k ≪ d k \ll d k ≪ d directions have Barron norms scaling with k k k , not d d d , evading the curse of dimensionality.
The Double Descent Phenomenon ¶ Three Empirical Facts ¶ In practice:
Training error ≪ \ll ≪ test error — networks interpolate training data.
Models are near optimal — test error approaches Bayes risk.
No explicit regularization needed.
The Double Descent Curve ¶ As p / n p/n p / n (parameters/samples) grows, test risk exhibits a double descent :
p / n < 1 p/n < 1 p / n < 1 (underparameterized): classical U-shaped bias-variance tradeoff; uniform convergence regime .
p / n ≈ 1 p/n \approx 1 p / n ≈ 1 (interpolation threshold): test risk peaks sharply.
p / n > 1 p/n > 1 p / n > 1 (overparameterized): test risk decreases again toward Bayes risk.
Two mechanisms explain why overparameterization helps:
Implicit (algorithmic) regularization — NTK regime. Gradient descent finds the minimum-norm interpolant, biased toward smooth solutions.
Benign overfitting (self-induced regularization). High-dimensional geometry makes certain interpolating solutions harmless: the spiky noise-fitting component is orthogonal to the signal in function space.
Gradient Flow and the NTK Linearization ¶ Setup ¶ Parameters θ ∈ R p \theta \in \mathbb{R}^p θ ∈ R p , network output vector f n ( θ ) = ( f ( x 1 ; θ ) , … , f ( x n ; θ ) ) ⊤ f_n(\theta) = (f(x_1;\theta),\ldots,f(x_n;\theta))^\top f n ( θ ) = ( f ( x 1 ; θ ) , … , f ( x n ; θ ) ) ⊤ , Jacobian D f n ( θ ) ∈ R n × p Df_n(\theta) \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times p} D f n ( θ ) ∈ R n × p . Empirical risk R ^ n ( θ ) = 1 2 n ∥ y − f n ( θ ) ∥ 2 \hat R_n(\theta) = \frac{1}{2n}\|y - f_n(\theta)\|^2 R ^ n ( θ ) = 2 n 1 ∥ y − f n ( θ ) ∥ 2 .
The gradient flow is
θ ˙ t = − ∇ R ^ n ( θ t ) = 1 n D f n ( θ t ) ⊤ ( y − f n ( θ t ) ) . \dot\theta_t = -\nabla\hat R_n(\theta_t) = \frac{1}{n}\,Df_n(\theta_t)^\top(y - f_n(\theta_t)). θ ˙ t = − ∇ R ^ n ( θ t ) = n 1 D f n ( θ t ) ⊤ ( y − f n ( θ t )) . Setting y t = f n ( θ t ) y_t = f_n(\theta_t) y t = f n ( θ t ) and K t = D f n ( θ t ) D f n ( θ t ) ⊤ ∈ R n × n K_t = Df_n(\theta_t)Df_n(\theta_t)^\top \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n} K t = D f n ( θ t ) D f n ( θ t ) ⊤ ∈ R n × n (the NTK matrix ):
y ˙ t = − 1 n K t ( y t − y ) . \dot y_t = -\frac{1}{n}K_t(y_t - y). y ˙ t = − n 1 K t ( y t − y ) . The Linearized Model ¶ If gradient flow stays near θ 0 \theta_0 θ 0 , Taylor-expand: f n ( θ ) ≈ f n ( θ 0 ) + D f n ( θ 0 ) ( θ − θ 0 ) f_n(\theta) \approx f_n(\theta_0) + Df_n(\theta_0)(\theta - \theta_0) f n ( θ ) ≈ f n ( θ 0 ) + D f n ( θ 0 ) ( θ − θ 0 ) , giving the linearized empirical risk
R ^ n l i n ( θ ) = 1 2 n ∥ y − f n ( θ 0 ) − D f n ( θ 0 ) ⊤ ( θ − θ 0 ) ∥ 2 . \hat R_n^\mathrm{lin}(\theta) = \frac{1}{2n}\|y - f_n(\theta_0) - Df_n(\theta_0)^\top(\theta-\theta_0)\|^2. R ^ n lin ( θ ) = 2 n 1 ∥ y − f n ( θ 0 ) − D f n ( θ 0 ) ⊤ ( θ − θ 0 ) ∥ 2 . The corresponding gradient flow θ ˉ ˙ t = − ∇ R ^ n l i n ( θ ˉ t ) \dot{\bar\theta}_t = -\nabla\hat R_n^\mathrm{lin}(\bar\theta_t) θ ˉ ˙ t = − ∇ R ^ n lin ( θ ˉ t ) is linear and exactly solvable; the linearized predictor f ˉ l i n ( ⋅ ) = f ( ⋅ ; θ 0 ) + D f ( ⋅ ; θ 0 ) ( θ ˉ t − θ 0 ) \bar f_\mathrm{lin}(\cdot) = f(\cdot;\theta_0) + Df(\cdot;\theta_0)(\bar\theta_t - \theta_0) f ˉ lin ( ⋅ ) = f ( ⋅ ; θ 0 ) + D f ( ⋅ ; θ 0 ) ( θ ˉ t − θ 0 ) converges to a kernel ridge regression solution.
Convergence Theorem ¶ Let L = L i p ( D f n ) L = \mathrm{Lip}(Df_n) L = Lip ( D f n ) . Assume
L ∥ y − f n ( θ 0 ) ∥ 2 ≤ 1 4 σ m i n ( D f n ( θ 0 ) ) 2 . L\|y - f_n(\theta_0)\|_2 \leq \frac{1}{4}\,\sigma_\mathrm{min}(Df_n(\theta_0))^2. L ∥ y − f n ( θ 0 ) ∥ 2 ≤ 4 1 σ min ( D f n ( θ 0 ) ) 2 . Then for all t > 0 t > 0 t > 0 :
(i) Exponential convergence: R ^ n ( θ t ) ≤ R ^ n ( θ 0 ) e − λ 0 t \hat R_n(\theta_t) \leq \hat R_n(\theta_0)\,e^{-\lambda_0 t} R ^ n ( θ t ) ≤ R ^ n ( θ 0 ) e − λ 0 t , λ 0 = σ m i n ( D f n ( θ 0 ) ) 2 2 n \quad\lambda_0 = \frac{\sigma_\mathrm{min}(Df_n(\theta_0))^2}{2n} λ 0 = 2 n σ min ( D f n ( θ 0 ) ) 2 .
(ii) Parameters stay near initialization: ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ 2 ≤ 2 σ m i n ( D f n ( θ 0 ) ) ∥ y − f n ( θ 0 ) ∥ 2 \|\theta_t - \theta_0\|_2 \leq \frac{2}{\sigma_\mathrm{min}(Df_n(\theta_0))}\|y - f_n(\theta_0)\|_2 ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ 2 ≤ σ min ( D f n ( θ 0 )) 2 ∥ y − f n ( θ 0 ) ∥ 2 .
(iii) Predictor tracks the linearized model: ∥ f n ( θ t ) − f n ( θ ˉ t ) ∥ L 2 ( P ) ≤ … \|f_n(\theta_t) - f_n(\bar\theta_t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{P})} \leq \ldots ∥ f n ( θ t ) − f n ( θ ˉ t ) ∥ L 2 ( P ) ≤ …
Full Proof of Part (i) and Part (ii) ¶ Setup. Let σ m i n = σ m i n ( D f n ( θ 0 ) ) \sigma_\mathrm{min} = \sigma_\mathrm{min}(Df_n(\theta_0)) σ min = σ min ( D f n ( θ 0 )) , r ∗ = σ m i n 2 / ( 2 L n ) r_* = \sigma_\mathrm{min}^2/(2Ln) r ∗ = σ min 2 / ( 2 L n ) , and t ∗ = inf { t : ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ ≥ r ∗ } t_* = \inf\{t : \|\theta_t - \theta_0\| \geq r_*\} t ∗ = inf { t : ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ ≥ r ∗ } . We show t ∗ = ∞ t_* = \infty t ∗ = ∞ .
For t < t ∗ t < t_* t < t ∗ , Lipschitz continuity of D f n Df_n D f n gives
∥ D f n ( θ t ) − D f n ( θ 0 ) ∥ o p ≤ L ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ < L r ∗ = σ m i n 2 2 n ⋅ n 1 = σ m i n 2 , \|Df_n(\theta_t) - Df_n(\theta_0)\|_\mathrm{op} \leq L\|\theta_t - \theta_0\| < Lr_* = \frac{\sigma_\mathrm{min}^2}{2n} \cdot \frac{n}{1} = \frac{\sigma_\mathrm{min}}{2}, ∥ D f n ( θ t ) − D f n ( θ 0 ) ∥ op ≤ L ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ < L r ∗ = 2 n σ min 2 ⋅ 1 n = 2 σ min , using the matrix inequality σ m i n ( A ) ≥ σ m i n ( B ) − ∥ A − B ∥ o p \sigma_\mathrm{min}(A) \geq \sigma_\mathrm{min}(B) - \|A-B\|_\mathrm{op} σ min ( A ) ≥ σ min ( B ) − ∥ A − B ∥ op :
σ m i n ( D f n ( θ t ) ) ≥ σ m i n 2 , λ m i n ( K t ) ≥ σ m i n 2 4 . \sigma_\mathrm{min}(Df_n(\theta_t)) \geq \frac{\sigma_\mathrm{min}}{2}, \quad \lambda_\mathrm{min}(K_t) \geq \frac{\sigma_\mathrm{min}^2}{4}. σ min ( D f n ( θ t )) ≥ 2 σ min , λ min ( K t ) ≥ 4 σ min 2 . Decay of ∥ y t − y ∥ 2 \|y_t - y\|^2 ∥ y t − y ∥ 2 . Since y ˙ t = − 1 n K t ( y t − y ) \dot y_t = -\frac{1}{n}K_t(y_t - y) y ˙ t = − n 1 K t ( y t − y ) :
d d t ∥ y t − y ∥ 2 = − 2 n ⟨ y t − y , K t ( y t − y ) ⟩ ≤ − σ m i n 2 2 n ∥ y t − y ∥ 2 = − λ 0 ∥ y t − y ∥ 2 . \frac{d}{dt}\|y_t - y\|^2 = -\frac{2}{n}\langle y_t - y, K_t(y_t-y)\rangle \leq -\frac{\sigma_\mathrm{min}^2}{2n}\|y_t - y\|^2 = -\lambda_0\|y_t-y\|^2. d t d ∥ y t − y ∥ 2 = − n 2 ⟨ y t − y , K t ( y t − y )⟩ ≤ − 2 n σ min 2 ∥ y t − y ∥ 2 = − λ 0 ∥ y t − y ∥ 2 . This gives ∥ y t − y ∥ 2 ≤ ∥ y 0 − y ∥ 2 e − λ 0 t \|y_t - y\|^2 \leq \|y_0 - y\|^2 e^{-\lambda_0 t} ∥ y t − y ∥ 2 ≤ ∥ y 0 − y ∥ 2 e − λ 0 t , i.e., R ^ n ( θ t ) ≤ R ^ n ( θ 0 ) e − λ 0 t \hat R_n(\theta_t) \leq \hat R_n(\theta_0)e^{-\lambda_0 t} R ^ n ( θ t ) ≤ R ^ n ( θ 0 ) e − λ 0 t .
Bounding ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ \|\theta_t - \theta_0\| ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ . From θ ˙ t = 1 n D f n ( θ t ) ⊤ ( y − y t ) \dot\theta_t = \frac{1}{n}Df_n(\theta_t)^\top(y - y_t) θ ˙ t = n 1 D f n ( θ t ) ⊤ ( y − y t ) :
d d t ∥ y t − y ∥ = − 1 n ∥ D f n ( θ t ) ( y t − y ) ∥ 2 ∥ y t − y ∥ ≤ − σ m i n 2 ⋅ 1 n ∥ D f n ( θ t ) ( y t − y ) ∥ = − σ m i n 2 ∥ θ ˙ t ∥ . \frac{d}{dt}\|y_t - y\| = -\frac{1}{n}\frac{\|Df_n(\theta_t)(y_t-y)\|^2}{\|y_t-y\|} \leq -\frac{\sigma_\mathrm{min}}{2} \cdot \frac{1}{n}\|Df_n(\theta_t)(y_t-y)\| = -\frac{\sigma_\mathrm{min}}{2}\|\dot\theta_t\|. d t d ∥ y t − y ∥ = − n 1 ∥ y t − y ∥ ∥ D f n ( θ t ) ( y t − y ) ∥ 2 ≤ − 2 σ min ⋅ n 1 ∥ D f n ( θ t ) ( y t − y ) ∥ = − 2 σ min ∥ θ ˙ t ∥. Hence d d t ( ∥ y t − y ∥ + σ m i n 2 ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ ) ≤ 0 \frac{d}{dt}\!\left(\|y_t - y\| + \frac{\sigma_\mathrm{min}}{2}\|\theta_t - \theta_0\|\right) \leq 0 d t d ( ∥ y t − y ∥ + 2 σ min ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ ) ≤ 0 , which integrates to
∥ y t − y ∥ + σ m i n 2 ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ ≤ ∥ y 0 − y ∥ . \boxed{\|y_t - y\| + \frac{\sigma_\mathrm{min}}{2}\|\theta_t - \theta_0\| \leq \|y_0 - y\|.} ∥ y t − y ∥ + 2 σ min ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ ≤ ∥ y 0 − y ∥. Therefore ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ ≤ 2 ∥ y 0 − y ∥ / σ m i n < r ∗ \|\theta_t - \theta_0\| \leq 2\|y_0 - y\|/\sigma_\mathrm{min} < r_* ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ ≤ 2∥ y 0 − y ∥/ σ min < r ∗ , so t ∗ = ∞ t_* = \infty t ∗ = ∞ and both bounds hold globally. □ \square □
Interpretation ¶ The condition L ∥ y − f n ( θ 0 ) ∥ 2 ≤ 1 4 σ m i n 2 L\|y - f_n(\theta_0)\|_2 \leq \frac{1}{4}\sigma_\mathrm{min}^2 L ∥ y − f n ( θ 0 ) ∥ 2 ≤ 4 1 σ min 2 is satisfied when the network is wide (m → ∞ m\to\infty m → ∞ ): at random Gaussian initialization, σ m i n ( D f n ( θ 0 ) ) = Ω ( n ) \sigma_\mathrm{min}(Df_n(\theta_0)) = \Omega(\sqrt{n}) σ min ( D f n ( θ 0 )) = Ω ( n ) , ∥ y − f n ( θ 0 ) ∥ 2 = O ( n ) \|y - f_n(\theta_0)\|_2 = O(\sqrt{n}) ∥ y − f n ( θ 0 ) ∥ 2 = O ( n ) , and L = O ( 1 / m ) L = O(1/\sqrt{m}) L = O ( 1/ m ) , so the product is O ( n / m ) → 0 O(\sqrt{n/m}) \to 0 O ( n / m ) → 0 .
Since ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ \|\theta_t - \theta_0\| ∥ θ t − θ 0 ∥ is bounded, f n ( θ t ) ≈ f n ( θ ˉ t ) f_n(\theta_t) \approx f_n(\bar\theta_t) f n ( θ t ) ≈ f n ( θ ˉ t ) throughout training — the lazy training (NTK) regime. The limit of gradient flow is the kernel ridge regression (KRR) estimator with the NTK kernel K ( x , x ′ ) = ⟨ D f ( ⋅ ; x 0 , θ 0 ) , D f ( ⋅ ; x ′ , θ 0 ) ⟩ K(x,x') = \langle Df(\cdot;x_0,\theta_0), Df(\cdot;x',\theta_0)\rangle K ( x , x ′ ) = ⟨ D f ( ⋅ ; x 0 , θ 0 ) , D f ( ⋅ ; x ′ , θ 0 )⟩ .
Du, S. S., Zhai, X., Poczos, B., & Singh, A. (2019). Gradient descent finds global minima of non-convex neural networks. International Conference on Machine Learning . Chizat, L., & Bach, F. (2020). Implicit bias of gradient descent for wide two-layer neural networks trained with the logistic loss. Conference on Learning Theory .