What can linearized neural networks actually say about generalization?
  For certain infinitely-wide neural networks, the neural tangent kernel (NTK)
theory fully characterizes generalization, but for the networks used in
practice, the empirical NTK only provides a rough first-order approximation.
Still, a growing body of work keeps leveraging this approximation to
successfully analyze important deep learning phenomena and design algorithms
for new applications. In our work, we provide strong empirical evidence to
determine the practical validity of such approximation by conducting a
systematic comparison of the behavior of different neural networks and their
linear approximations on different tasks. We show that the linear
approximations can indeed rank the learning complexity of certain tasks for
neural networks, even when they achieve very different performances. However,
in contrast to what was previously reported, we discover that neural networks
do not always perform better than their kernel approximations, and reveal that
the performance gap heavily depends on architecture, dataset size and training
task. We discover that networks overfit to these tasks mostly due to the
evolution of their kernel during training, thus, revealing a new type of
implicit bias.
