On the Ability of Deep Networks to Learn Symmetries from Data: A Neural Kernel Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Symmetries (transformations by group actions) are present in many datasets, and leveraging them holds considerable promise for improving predictions in machine learning. In this work, we aim to understand when and how deep networks -- with standard architectures trained in a standard, supervised way -- learn symmetries from data. Inspired by real-world scenarios, we study a classification paradigm where data symmetries are only partially observed during training: some classes include all transformations of a cyclic group, while others -- only a subset. In the infinite-width limit, where kernel analogies apply, we derive a neural kernel theory of symmetry learning. The group-cyclic nature of the dataset allows us to analyze the Gram matrix of neural kernels in the Fourier domain; here we find a simple characterization of the generalization error as a function of class separation (signal) and class-orbit density (noise). This characterization reveals that generalization can only be successful when the local structure of the data prevails over its non-local, symmetry-induced structure, in the kernel space defined by the architecture. We extend our theoretical treatment to any finite group, including non-abelian groups. Our framework also applies to equivariant architectures (e.g., CNNs), and recovers their success in the special case where the architecture matches the inherent symmetry of the data. Empirically, our theory reproduces the generalization failure of finite-width networks (MLP, CNN, ViT) trained on partially observed versions of rotated-MNIST. We conclude that conventional deep networks lack a mechanism to learn symmetries that have not been explicitly embedded in their architecture a priori. Our framework could be extended to guide the design of architectures and training procedures able to learn symmetries from data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".