Memorization is retaining specific training examples or their details instead of learning patterns that generalize. In language models, greater scale can increase the capacity to store and reproduce training text, while repetition, redundancy, and training duration also shape what is retained. section 6.2.2
Fitting random labels
In experiments reported in 2016, AlexNet achieved 99.82% training accuracy on CIFAR-10 with randomized labels, and 95.20% top-1 training accuracy on ImageNet with more than one million random labels. High training accuracy therefore need not mean a network learned meaningful structure. section 8.5.2
Memorization complicates evaluation: language-model training data may overlap with public benchmarks such as SQuAD and GLUE, making it hard to tell whether a benchmark was encountered during training. Such contamination can inflate scores, though it does not account for all gains. section 6.2.2
Table 8.1 Training and test accuracy of a smaller version of AlexNet on the CIFAR-10 dataset. The original AlexNet had 60 million parameters.
|
Model
|
Number of parameters
|
Labels
|
Random crop
|
Weight decay
|
Train accuracy
|
Test accuracy
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AlexNet
|
1,387,786
|
true
|
yes
|
yes
|
99.90
|
81.22
|
|
true
|
yes
|
no
|
99.82
|
79.66
|
||
|
true
|
no
|
yes
|
100.0
|
77.36
|
||
|
true
|
no
|
no
|
100.0
|
76.07
|
||
|
random
|
no
|
no
|
99.82
|
9.86
|
Compare AlexNet’s training and test accuracy when trained on true versus randomized labels. section 8.5.2



