I'm writing this at the end of a significant decade of advances in deep neural networks (NNs). NNs have convincingly blown every other machine learning model out of the water, and for good reason. The community has now arrived at a juncture where different theories are being floated to explain the unreasonable effectiveness of neural networks. For now, however, an understanding of the fundamental unit of computation in neural networks alludes us. All we have is probe studies observing pathologies, and many researchers investigating them. We as a community, are an untidy congregation of incomplete ideas. This is good chaos. This is the sort of community where breakthroughs have outsized impact.
While reading Measurement: A Very Short Introduction, I came across the history of how temperature measurements evolved. Temperature, unlike directly measurable quantities like counts or length, is something that we only feel. It may then not come as a surprise that some of the early thermometers were called as thermoscopes by W. E. Knowles Middleton, because instead of precise interval scales, they only worked at an ordinal scale, i.e. only a qualitative measurement of the degree of hotness.
While our usual measurements enjoyed the luxury of simple algebra, combining two copies of an object with the same temperature does not simply double the temperature. Similarly, putting two objects of different temperature together gives us an intermediate temperature. The researchers of the time must surely have been baffled. The phenomenon had exposed a missing piece in our fundamental understanding of the physical sciences: the nature of energy.
The historical starting point to establish numerical scales for temperature started with first figuring out fixed points, and a surprisingly very many have been proposed -- freezing/boiling point of water, melting point of wax, temperature of burning soft coal, or even the temperature of human body. Calling these scales fixed is troublesome because matter exhibits different properties at different temperatures. The more recent mercury column-based thermometers rely on the assumption that equal changes in temperature lead to equal changes in the magnitude of our physical quantity (length of the mercury column). This assumption in general in unfounded as well. Further, extrapolating beyond the defined fixed points needs the definition of new fixed points, and we are back to square one. A common theme here is that the list of temperature-dependent phenomenon kept growing, and subsequent developments of pyrometric measurements also were virtually endless.
This pragmatic arbitrariness naturally hints towards something more fundamental in temperature measurement. It was observed that the pressure of a fixed volume of gas decreases as the temperature is lowered. Therefore, there must be a minimum possible temperature - an absolute zero. Our formal understanding was eventually strengthened, starting with the conceptual tool of ideal gases to help bridge the gap between pressure, kinetic energy, and thermodynamic temperature. We ended up with the Kelvin scale which is now the SI unit of temperature. The important lesson here is that pragmatic tools of temperature measurement kept evolving throughout this good chaos of new measurement mechansisms being proposed all over.
Neural networks research is going through this good chaos as of this writing. We do not understand the fundamental unit of expression in a neural network. While we have a few inspired mechansisms to understand them, we are far from understanding what is really happening. Does this make neural networks bad? Of course not. Any method probing neural networks is a good method, as long as it is reasonably well-founded, until of course something else succeeds its utility. As I'd put it,
neural networks research is on a long journey to find its absolute zero.