CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 171Neural Networks and ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Insights on representational similarity in neural networks with canonical correlation

Open access
Morcos, Ari S., Raghu, Maithra, Bengio, Samy·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1806.05759arXiv 1806.05759
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Comparing different neural network representations and determining how representations evolve over time remain challenging open questions in our understanding of the function of neural networks. Comparing representations in neural networks is fundamentally difficult as the structure of representations varies greatly, even across groups of networks trained on identical tasks, and over the course of training. Here, we develop projection weighted CCA (Canonical Correlation Analysis) as a tool for understanding neural networks, building off of SVCCA, a recently proposed method (Raghu et al., 2017). We first improve the core method, showing how to differentiate between signal and noise, and then apply this technique to compare across a group of CNNs, demonstrating that networks which generalize converge to more similar representations than networks which memorize, that wider networks converge to more similar solutions than narrow networks, and that trained networks with identical topology but different learning rates converge to distinct clusters with diverse representations. We also investigate the representational dynamics of RNNs, across both training and sequential timesteps, finding that RNNs converge in a bottom-up pattern over the course of training and that the hidden state is highly variable over the course of a sequence, even when accounting for linear transforms. Together, these results provide new insights into the function of CNNs and RNNs, and demonstrate the utility of using CCA to understand representations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1806.05759

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • As neural networks scale in data volume, model capacity, and task diversity, their internal representation spaces exhibit increasing alignment, converging toward a shared statistical model of reality.

    “as neural networks scale in data volume, model capacity, and task diversity, their internal representation spaces exhibit increasing alignment, converging toward a shared statistical model of reality”

    From Platonic Representation Hypothesis on World Models (2026) · cites this paper as Morcos et al., 2018

    Section 3.2 (p. 6) reports that wider CNNs trained on the same task converged to more similar representations, supporting the model-capacity part of the claim. The paper does not establish that increasing data volume or task diversity increases alignment, or that networks converge toward a shared statistical model of reality; the Abstract (p. 1) also notes distinct representational clusters under different learning rates. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. [1][1] Sajid Anwar, Kyuyeon Hwang, and Wonyong Sung. Structured pruning of deep convolutional neural networks. J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst. , 13(3):32:1-32:18, February 2017. -
  2. [2][2] Devansh Arpit, Stanisław Jastrz˛ ebski, Nicolas Ballas, David Krueger, Emmanuel Bengio, Maxinder S Kanwal, Tegan Maharaj, Asja Fischer, Aaron Courville, Yoshua Bengio, and Simon Lacoste-Julien. A closer look at memorization in deep networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML'17) , June 2017. -
  3. [3][3] Maurice S. Bartlett. The statistical significance of canonical correlations. In Biometrika , volume 32, pages 29 - 37, 1941. -
  4. [6][6] Mikhail Figurnov, Aizhan Ibraimova, Dmitry P Vetrov, and Pushmeet Kohli. PerforatedCNNs: Acceleration through elimination of redundant convolutions. In D D Lee, M Sugiyama, U V Luxburg, I Guyon, and R Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 , pages 947-955. Curran Associates, Inc., 2016. -
  5. [7][7] Jonathan Frankle and Michael Carbin. The lottery ticket hypothesis: Training pruned neural networks. CoRR , abs/1803.03635, 2018. - · arXiv
  6. [8][8] Song Han, Huizi Mao, and William J Dally. Deep compression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR'16) , October 2015. -
  7. [9][9] Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William J. Dally. Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural networks. CoRR , abs/1506.02626, 2015. - · arXiv
  8. [10][10] Harold Hotelling. Relations between two sets of variates. In Biometrika , volume 28, pages 321-337, 1936. -
  9. [11][11] Andrej Karpathy, Justin Johnson, and Li Fei-Fei. Visualizing and understanding recurrent networks. International Conference on Learning Representations Workshop , abs/1506.02078, 2016. - · arXiv
  10. [12][12] Yann LeCun, John S Denker, and Sara A Solla. Optimal brain damage. In D S Touretzky, editor, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2 , pages 598-605. Morgan-Kaufmann, 1990. -
  11. [13][13] Jaehoon Lee, Yasaman Bahri, Roman Novak, Samuel S Schoenholz, Jeffrey Pennington, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein. Deep neural networks as gaussian processes. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR'17) , 2018. -
  12. [14][14] Chunyuan Li, Heerad Farkhoor, Rosanne Liu, and Jason Yosinski. Measuring the intrinsic dimension of objective landscapes. In International Conference on Learning Representations , April 2018. -
  13. [15][15] Hao Li, Asim Kadav, Igor Durdanovic, Hanan Samet, and Hans Peter Graf. Pruning filters for efficient ConvNets. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR'17) , pages 1-10, 2017. -
  14. [16][16] Yixuan Li, Jason Yosinski, Jeff Clune, Hod Lipson, and John Hopcroft. Convergent learning: Do different neural networks learn the same representations? In Feature Extraction: Modern Questions and Challenges , pages 196-212, 2015. -
  15. [17][17] AGDG Matthews, J Hron, M Rowland, RE Turner, and Z Ghahramani. Gaussian process behaviour in wide deep neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR'18) , 2018. -
  16. [19][19] Stephen Merity, Nitish Shirish Keskar, and Richard Socher. An Analysis of Neural Language Modeling at Multiple Scales. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.08240 , 2018. - · arXiv
  17. [20][20] Pavlo Molchanov, Stephen Tyree, Tero Karras, Timo Aila, and Jan Kautz. Pruning convolutional neural networks for resource efficient inference. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR'17) , November 2016. -
  18. [21][21] Ari S. Morcos, David G.T. Barrett, Neil C. Rabinowitz, and Matthew Botvinick. On the importance of single directions for generalization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR'18) , 2018. -
  19. [22][22] Maithra Raghu, Justin Gilmer, Jason Yosinski, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein. Svcca: Singular vector canonical correlation analysis for deep learning dynamics and interpretability. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2017. -
  20. [23][23] David Sussillo, Mark M Churchland, Matthew T Kaufman, and Krishna V Shenoy. A neural network that finds a naturalistic solution for the production of muscle activity. Nature neuroscience , 18(7):1025-1033, 2015. -
  21. [24][24] Viivi Uurtio, João M. Monteiro, Jaz Kandola, John Shawe-Taylor, Delmiro Fernandez-Reyes, and Juho Rousu. A tutorial on canonical correlation methods. ACMComput. Surv. , 50(6):95:195:33, November 2017. -
  22. [25][25] Jason Yosinski, Jeff Clune, Anh Nguyen, Thomas Fuchs, and Hod Lipson. Understanding neural networks through deep visualization. In Deep Learning Workshop, International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2015. -
  23. [26][26] Matthew D Zeiler and Rob Fergus. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In European conference on computer vision , pages 818-833. Springer, 2014. -
  24. [27][27] Chiyuan Zhang, Samy Bengio, Moritz Hardt, Benjamin Recht, and Oriol Vinyals. Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR'16) , abs/1611.03530, 2016. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morcos, A. S., Raghu, M., & Bengio, S.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
ORCID
Morcos, Ari S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
Volume
31
Pages
5727-5736
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1806.05759
arXiv
1806.05759
OpenAlex
W2807716166
Cited by
171
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
representational similarity, canonical correlation analysis, neural network representations, convolutional neural networks, recurrent neural networks, representational dynamics, network width, learning rate

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