Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 175 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 54 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 38 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 37 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 108 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 180 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 447 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Gradient Networks (2404.07361v3)

Published 10 Apr 2024 in cs.LG, cs.NE, eess.SP, and math.OC

Abstract: Directly parameterizing and learning gradients of functions has widespread significance, with specific applications in inverse problems, generative modeling, and optimal transport. This paper introduces gradient networks (GradNets): novel neural network architectures that parameterize gradients of various function classes. GradNets exhibit specialized architectural constraints that ensure correspondence to gradient functions. We provide a comprehensive GradNet design framework that includes methods for transforming GradNets into monotone gradient networks (mGradNets), which are guaranteed to represent gradients of convex functions. Our results establish that our proposed GradNet (and mGradNet) universally approximate the gradients of (convex) functions. Furthermore, these networks can be customized to correspond to specific spaces of potential functions, including transformed sums of (convex) ridge functions. Our analysis leads to two distinct GradNet architectures, GradNet-C and GradNet-M, and we describe the corresponding monotone versions, mGradNet-C and mGradNet-M. Our empirical results demonstrate that these architectures provide efficient parameterizations and outperform existing methods by up to 15 dB in gradient field tasks and by up to 11 dB in Hamiltonian dynamics learning tasks.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (29)
  1. A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 25, 2012.
  2. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017.
  3. V. Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski et al., “Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,” Nature, vol. 518, no. 7540, pp. 529–533, 2015.
  4. A. Hyvärinen and P. Dayan, “Estimation of non-normalized statistical models by score matching.” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 695–709, 2005.
  5. Y. Song and S. Ermon, “Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, 2019.
  6. R. Cai, G. Yang, H. Averbuch-Elor, Z. Hao, S. Belongie, N. Snavely, and B. Hariharan, “Learning gradient fields for shape generation,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part III 16.   Springer, 2020, pp. 364–381.
  7. C. Shi, S. Luo, M. Xu, and J. Tang, “Learning gradient fields for molecular conformation generation,” in International Conference on Machine Learning.   PMLR, 2021, pp. 9558–9568.
  8. Y. Brenier, “Polar factorization and monotone rearrangement of vector-valued functions,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 375–417, 1991.
  9. F. Santambrogio, “Optimal transport for applied mathematicians,” Birkäuser, NY, vol. 55, no. 58-63, p. 94, 2015.
  10. C.-W. Huang, R. T. Q. Chen, C. Tsirigotis, and A. Courville, “Convex potential flows: Universal probability distributions with optimal transport and convex optimization,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=te7PVH1sPxJ
  11. A. Goujon, S. Neumayer, P. Bohra, S. Ducotterd, and M. Unser, “A neural-network-based convex regularizer for inverse problems,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging, vol. 9, pp. 781–795, 2023.
  12. R. Cohen, Y. Blau, D. Freedman, and E. Rivlin, “It has potential: Gradient-driven denoisers for convergent solutions to inverse problems,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 18 152–18 164, 2021.
  13. R. Fermanian, M. Le Pendu, and C. Guillemot, “PnP-ReG: Learned regularizing gradient for plug-and-play gradient descent,” SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 585–613, 2023.
  14. Y. Song and S. Ermon, “Improved techniques for training score-based generative models,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 12 438–12 448, 2020.
  15. M. Andrychowicz, M. Denil, S. Gomez, M. W. Hoffman, D. Pfau, T. Schaul, B. Shillingford, and N. De Freitas, “Learning to learn by gradient descent by gradient descent,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 29, 2016.
  16. W. M. Czarnecki, S. Osindero, M. Jaderberg, G. Swirszcz, and R. Pascanu, “Sobolev training for neural networks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017.
  17. D. B. Lindell, J. N. P. Martel, and G. Wetzstein, “AutoInt: Automatic integration for fast neural volume rendering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2021, pp. 14 556–14 565.
  18. S. Saremi, “On approximating ∇f∇𝑓\nabla f∇ italic_f with neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.12744, 2019.
  19. L. Metz, C. D. Freeman, S. S. Schoenholz, and T. Kachman, “Gradients are not all you need,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05803, 2021.
  20. J. Richter-Powell, J. Lorraine, and B. Amos, “Input convex gradient networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.12187, 2021.
  21. B. Amos, L. Xu, and J. Z. Kolter, “Input convex neural networks,” in International Conference on Machine Learning.   PMLR, 2017, pp. 146–155.
  22. Y. Chen, Y. Shi, and B. Zhang, “Optimal control via neural networks: A convex approach,” International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018.
  23. A. Makkuva, A. Taghvaei, S. Oh, and J. Lee, “Optimal transport mapping via input convex neural networks,” in International Conference on Machine Learning.   PMLR, 2020, pp. 6672–6681.
  24. A. Korotin, L. Li, A. Genevay, J. M. Solomon, A. Filippov, and E. Burnaev, “Do neural optimal transport solvers work? a continuous wasserstein-2 benchmark,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 14 593–14 605, 2021.
  25. S. Chaudhari, S. Pranav, and J. M. Moura, “Learning gradients of convex functions with monotone gradient networks,” in ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2023, pp. 1–5.
  26. A. L. Yuille and A. Rangarajan, “The concave-convex procedure (CCCP),” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 14, 2001.
  27. G. Cybenko, “Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function,” Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 303–314, 1989.
  28. K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778.
  29. H. Li, Z. Xu, G. Taylor, C. Studer, and T. Goldstein, “Visualizing the loss landscape of neural nets,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 31, 2018.

Summary

  • The paper establishes necessary and sufficient conditions for neural networks to represent gradient fields with symmetric Jacobians.
  • It demonstrates that GradNets and mGradNets can universally approximate gradients, including those of convex functions, through theoretical proofs.
  • Empirical results show these architectures outperform traditional methods in gradient field learning tasks by achieving lower mean squared errors.

Deep Dive into Gradient Networks: A Comprehensive Study

Introduction

The landscape of neural network research continuously evolves, exploring novel architectures that push the boundaries of how these models understand and manipulate data. A recent contribution to this expanding field is the development of Gradient Networks (GradNets) and their monotone counterparts (mGradNets). This paper by Chaudhari et al. explores neural network architectures that directly parameterize gradients of scalar-valued functions, with a particular focus on their applicability in learning gradients of convex functions. The framework introduced not only theoretical constructs for the design of such networks but also empirical validation of their efficacy in gradient field learning tasks.

The majority of the related works revolve around utilizing traditional neural network structures to model the gradient of functions or indirectly learning these gradients through the parameterization of underlying scalar functions. These methods, while demonstrating satisfactory performance in various applications, lack a theoretical foundation guaranteeing that the learned functions accurately represent the gradients of scalar-valued functions. In contrast, this paper positions GradNets and mGradNets within this context, highlighting their unique ability to ensure such a correspondence through specialized architectural constraints.

Gradient Networks (GradNet)

A significant portion of this paper is dedicated to introducing and formalizing the concept of Gradient Networks. The authors establish necessary and sufficient conditions for a neural network to be considered a GradNet. A crucial aspect of their analysis hinges on ensuring the symmetry of the network's Jacobian concerning its inputs, which, according to Clairaut's Theorem, guarantees the network represents a gradient field. Proposals for practical GradNet construction include the development of networks with single and multiple hidden layers, leveraging elementwise activation functions, and embedding scalar-valued neural networks as activations.

Monotone Gradient Networks (mGradNet)

Building on the GradNet architecture, the paper extends the design to Monotone Gradient Networks, which specifically correspond to gradients of convex functions. The authors thoroughly investigate the necessary architectural adjustments required to ensure the network's Jacobian is positive semidefinite, a property integral to monotone gradient functions. This leads to the introduction of mGradNets that are capable of universally approximating gradients of convex functions and their significance in various scientific and engineering disciplines.

Universal Approximation Results

A compelling aspect of the proposed architectures is their universal approximation capabilities. Through rigorous mathematical proofs, the paper demonstrates that both GradNets and mGradNets can universally approximate a wide range of function gradients, including sums of (convex) ridge functions and transformations thereof. These results provide a theoretical backbone supporting the use of GradNets and mGradNets in applications requiring precise gradient approximation.

Architectural Enhancements

Beyond the foundational GradNet and mGradNet structures, the paper explores architectural enhancements aimed at improving parameterization efficiency and learning performance. This includes the introduction of Cascaded and Modular Gradient Networks, which offer more complex and deeper network architectures while maintaining the theoretical properties ensuring accurate gradient representation.

Experiments and Evaluation

The empirical validation of GradNets and mGradNets is conducted through experiments focusing on gradient field learning tasks. The results showcase the superiority of the proposed networks over popular existing methods, offering lower mean squared error in approximating known gradient fields. This not only validates the theoretical properties of the networks but also demonstrates their practical applicability and potential advantages in real-world scenarios.

Conclusion

This paper represents a significant advancement in the development and understanding of neural networks specifically designed to parameterize and learn function gradients. With a solid theoretical foundation and promising empirical results, Gradient Networks and their monotone variants introduce a new paradigm in neural network architecture design. The implications of this research extend across various domains, paving the way for future developments in gradient-based modeling and optimization techniques in machine learning and beyond.

File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com PDF File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Markdown
Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 3 tweets and received 79 likes.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper:

Start a free 7-day Pro trial