Classifying the classifier: dissecting the weight space of neural networks
Open accessAbstract
This paper presents an empirical study on the weights of neural networks, where we interpret each model as a point in a high-dimensional space – the neural weight space. To explore the complex structure of this space, we sample from a diverse selection of training variations (dataset, optimization procedure, architecture, etc.) of neural network classifiers, and train a large number of models to represent the weight space. Then, we use a machine learning approach for analyzing and extracting information from this space. Most centrally, we train a number of novel deep meta-classifiers with the objective of classifying different properties of the training setup by identifying their footprints in the weight space. Thus, the meta-classifiers probe for patterns induced by hyper-parameters, so that we can quantify how much, where, and when these are encoded through the optimization process. This provides a novel and complementary view for explainable AI, and we show how meta-classifiers can reveal a great deal of information about the training setup and optimization, by only considering a small subset of randomly selected consecutive weights. To promote further research on the weight space, we release the neural weight space (NWS) dataset – a collection of 320K weight snapshots from 16K individually trained deep neural networks.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The weight neighborhoods of good model checkpoints might be promising to explore.
“We posit that the weight neighborhoods of good model checkpoints might be promising to explore (Eilertsen et al., 2020)”
From Model Swarms: Collaborative Search to Adapt LLM Experts via Swarm Intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as Eilertsen et al., 2020
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Martin, C. H., Peng, T., & Mahoney, M. W. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24025-8 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Model Swarms: Collaborative Search to Adapt LLM Experts via Swarm Intelligence
Feng, S., Wang, Z., Wang, Y., Ebrahimi, S., Palangi, H., Miculicich, L., Kulshrestha, A., Rauschmayr, N., Choi, Y., Tsvetkov, Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.11163 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“We posit that the weight neighborhoods of good model checkpoints might be promising to explore (Eilertsen et al., 2020), thus the velocity of particles v i is iteratively drawn by personal best p i , global best g , and repelled by global worst g w .”
- Authors
- Gabriel, E., Daniel, J., Timo, R., Jonas, U., & Anders, Y.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications
- Publisher
- IOS Press
- Published
- 2020
- ISSN
- 0922-6389 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3091052244
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.41
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
- Keywords
- meta-classifier, hyperparameter effects, explainable AI, neural network classifier, optimization process, training variation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review