Demystifying ResNet
We provide a theoretical explanation for the superb performance of ResNet via the study of deep linear networks and some nonlinear variants. We show that with or without nonlinearities, by adding shortcuts that have depth two, the condition number of the Hessian of the loss function at the zero initial point is depth-invariant, which makes training very deep models no more difficult than shallow ones. Shortcuts of higher depth result in an extremely flat (high-order) stationary point initially, from which the optimization algorithm is hard to escape. The 1-shortcut, however, is essentially equivalent to no shortcuts. Extensive experiments are provided accompanying our theoretical results. We show that initializing the network to small weights with 2-shortcuts achieves significantly better results than random Gaussian (Xavier) initialization, orthogonal initialization, and shortcuts of deeper depth, from various perspectives ranging from final loss, learning dynamics and stability, to the behavior of the Hessian along the learning process.
I think the write-up can be improved. The results of the paper also might be somewhat misleading. The behavior for when weights are 0 is not revealing of how the model works in general. I think the work also underestimates the effect of the nonlinearities on the learning dynamics of the model.
You are a member of the scientific community tasked with peer review. Review the following paper title and abstract.
### Title + Abstract
Demystifying ResNet
We provide a theoretical explanation for the superb performance of ResNet via the study of deep linear networks and some nonlinear variants. We show that with or without nonlinearities, by adding shortcuts that have depth two, the condition number of the Hessian of the loss function at the zero initial point is depth-invariant, which makes training very deep models no more difficult than shallow ones. Shortcuts of higher depth result in an extremely flat (high-order) stationary point initially, from which the optimization algorithm is hard to escape. The 1-shortcut, however, is essentially equivalent to no shortcuts. Extensive experiments are provided accompanying our theoretical results. We show that initializing the network to small weights with 2-shortcuts achieves significantly better results than random Gaussian (Xavier) initialization, orthogonal initialization, and shortcuts of deeper depth, from various perspectives ranging from final loss, learning dynamics and stability, to the behavior of the Hessian along the learning process.
user
<think>Okay, to do a decent peer review, I should start with summarizing what the work is about. This includes novelty, contributions, clarity, and impact. I might include suggestions to issues that I find critical to the usefulness of the work. Starting with novelty, there are different types of novelty. The first aspect of novelty is scope and scale. Is the work covering a broader perspective than previous works? The second aspect is methodology. Is the proposed methodology novel compared to previous methods? Do they provide any significant advantage over previous methodologies? The third aspect is results. Are the results different compared previous work? Does this lead to any novel theories or an extension of current theories? Next is clarity, I will be reading the work in depth and analyze if any sentences can be potentially ambiguous or misleading. If any sentences are ambiguous, I will state them and give a suggestion on how to rephrase such sentence or how to make more clear to the audience. Lastly, impact is important. I will attempt to predict how such work will impact the scientific community. This might include the applications of such work and how the work might transform the way we study a certain topic. Finally, I will might only mention issues that are critical. This is to keep the review as concise and helpful as possible.</think>



I think the write-up can be improved. The results of the paper also might be somewhat misleading. The behavior for when weights are 0 is not revealing of how the model works in general. I think the work also underestimates the effect of the nonlinearities on the learning dynamics of the model.
assistant
I think the write-up can be improved. The results of the paper also might be somewhat misleading. The behavior for when weights are 0 is not revealing of how the model works in general. I think the work also underestimates the effect of the nonlinearities on the learning dynamics of the model.