PreprintCited by 5

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What shapes feature representations? Exploring datasets, architectures, and training

Hermann, Katherine L., Lampinen, Andrew K.·2020·arXiv

Abstract

In naturalistic learning problems, a model's input contains a wide range of features, some useful for the task at hand, and others not. Of the useful features, which ones does the model use? Of the task-irrelevant features, which ones does the model represent? Answers to these questions are important for understanding the basis of models' decisions, as well as for building models that learn versatile, adaptable representations useful beyond the original training task. We study these questions using synthetic datasets in which the task-relevance of input features can be controlled directly. We find that when two features redundantly predict the labels, the model preferentially represents one, and its preference reflects what was most linearly decodable from the untrained model. Over training, task-relevant features are enhanced, and task-irrelevant features are partially suppressed. Interestingly, in some cases, an easier, weakly predictive feature can suppress a more strongly predictive, but more difficult one. Additionally, models trained to recognize both easy and hard features learn representations most similar to models that use only the easy feature. Further, easy features lead to more consistent representations across model runs than do hard features. Finally, models have greater representational similarity to an untrained model than to models trained on a different task. Our results highlight the complex processes that determine which features a model represents.

Overview

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.2006.12433

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. ADI, Y., KERMANY, E., BELINKOV, Y., LAVI, O., AND GOLDBERG, Y. Fine-grained analysis of sentence embeddings using auxiliary prediction tasks. International Conference on Learning Representations (2017).
  2. ARORA, S., COHEN, N., HU, W., AND LUO, Y. Implicit regularization in deep matrix factorization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2019), pp. 7413-7424.
  3. CICHY, R. M., KHOSLA, A., PANTAZIS, D., AND OLIVA, A. Dynamics of scene represen- tations in the human brain revealed by magnetoencephalography and deep neural networks. NeuroImage 153 (2017), 346-358.
  4. CICHY, R. M., KHOSLA, A., PANTAZIS, D., TORRALBA, A., AND OLIVA, A. Comparison of deep neural networks to spatio-temporal cortical dynamics of human visual object recognition reveals hierarchical correspondence. Scientific reports 6 (2016), 27755.
  5. FRANKLE, J., SCHWAB, D. J., AND MORCOS, A. S. Training batchnorm and only batchnorm: On the expressive power of random features in cnns. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00152 (2020). · arXiv
  6. GAIER, A., AND HA, D. Weight agnostic neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2019), pp. 5365-5379.
  7. GEIRHOS, R., RUBISCH, P., MICHAELIS, C., BETHGE, M., WICHMANN, F. A., AND BRENDEL, W. Imagenet-trained cnns are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12231 (2018). · arXiv
  8. HE, K., GIRSHICK, R., AND DOLLÁR, P. Rethinking imagenet pre-training. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (2019), pp. 4918-4927.
  9. HERMANN, K. L., AND KORNBLITH, S. Exploring the origins and prevalence of texture bias in convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.09071 (2019). · arXiv
  10. HONG, H., YAMINS, D. L., MAJAJ, N. J., AND DICARLO, J. J. Explicit information for category-orthogonal object properties increases along the ventral stream. Nature neuroscience 19, 4 (2016), 613.
  11. HUH, M., AGRAWAL, P., AND EFROS, A. A. What makes imagenet good for transfer learning? arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.08614 (2016). · arXiv
  12. ISLAM, M. A., JIA, S., AND BRUCE, N. D. How much position information do convolutional neural networks encode? arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08248 (2020). · arXiv
  13. JARRETT, K., KAVUKCUOGLU, K., RANZATO, M., AND LECUN, Y. What is the best multi- stage architecture for object recognition? In 2009 IEEE 12th international conference on computer vision (2009), IEEE, pp. 2146-2153.
  14. KINGMA, D. P., AND BA, J. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014). · arXiv
  15. KIRKPATRICK, J., PASCANU, R., RABINOWITZ, N., VENESS, J., DESJARDINS, G., RUSU, A. A., MILAN, K., QUAN, J., RAMALHO, T., GRABSKA-BARWINSKA, A., ET AL. Overcom- ing catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 114, 13 (2017), 3521-3526.
  16. KORNBLITH, S., NOROUZI, M., LEE, H., AND HINTON, G. Similarity of neural network representations revisited. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.00414 (2019). · arXiv
  17. KORNBLITH, S., SHLENS, J., AND LE, Q. V. Do better imagenet models transfer better? In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (2019), pp. 2661-2671.
  18. KRIEGESKORTE, N., MUR, M., AND BANDETTINI, P. A. Representational similarity analysis- connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Frontiers in systems neuroscience 2 (2008), 4.
  19. LAMPINEN, A. K., AND GANGULI, S. An analytic theory of generalization dynamics and transfer learning in deep linear networks. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (2019).
  20. MCCLELLAND, J. L., MCNAUGHTON, B. L., AND LAMPINEN, A. K. Integration of new information in memory: new insights from a complementary learning systems perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 375, 1799 (2020), 20190637.
  21. MCCLOSKEY, M., AND COHEN, N. J. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In Psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 24. Elsevier, 1989, pp. 109-165.
  22. MEHRER, J., SPOERER, C. J., KRIEGESKORTE, N., AND KIETZMANN, T. C. Individual differences among deep neural network models. bioRxiv (2020).
  23. NAVON, D. Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive psychology 9, 3 (1977), 353-383.
  24. PARASCANDOLO, G., NEITZ, A., ORVIETO, A., GRESELE, L., AND SCHÖLKOPF, B. Learn- ing explanations that are hard to vary. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.00329 (2020). · arXiv
  25. RAMANUJAN, V., WORTSMAN, M., KEMBHAVI, A., FARHADI, A., AND RASTEGARI, M. What's hidden in a randomly weighted neural network? arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.13299 (2019). · arXiv
  26. ROSTAMI, M., KOLOURI, S., MCCLELLAND, J., AND PILLY, P. Generative continual concept learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.03744 (2019). · arXiv
  27. SAXE, A. M., BANSAL, Y., DAPELLO, J., ADVANI, M., KOLCHINSKY, A., TRACEY, B. D., AND COX, D. D. On the information bottleneck theory of deep learning. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2019, 12 (2019), 124020.
  28. SAXE, A. M., MCCLELLAND, J. L., AND GANGULI, S. Exact solutions to the nonlinear dynamics of learning in deep linear neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6120 (2013). · arXiv
  29. SAXE, A. M., MCCLELLAND, J. L., AND GANGULI, S. A mathematical theory of semantic development in deep neural networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 23 (2019), 11537-11546.
  30. SHAH, H., TAMULY, K., RAGHUNATHAN, A., JAIN, P., AND NETRAPALLI, P. The pitfalls of simplicity bias in neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07710 (2020). · arXiv
  31. SHWARTZ-ZIV, R., AND TISHBY, N. Opening the black box of deep neural networks via information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.00810 (2017). · arXiv
  32. STORRS, K. R., KIETZMANN, T. C., WALTHER, A., MEHRER, J., AND KRIEGESKORTE, N. Diverse deep neural networks all predict human it well, after training and fitting. bioRxiv (2020).
  33. ULYANOV, D., VEDALDI, A., AND LEMPITSKY, V. Deep image prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2018), pp. 9446-9454.
  34. VALLE-PÉREZ, G., CAMARGO, C. Q., AND LOUIS, A. A. Deep learning generalizes because the parameter-function map is biased towards simple functions. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (2019).
  35. XU, Y., AND VAZIRI-PASHKAM, M. Limited correspondence in visual representation between the human brain and convolutional neural networks. bioRxiv (2020).
  36. YAMINS, D. L., HONG, H., CADIEU, C. F., SOLOMON, E. A., SEIBERT, D., AND DICARLO, J. J. Performance-optimized hierarchical models predict neural responses in higher visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 23 (2014), 8619-8624.
  37. ZEMEL, R., WU, Y., SWERSKY, K., PITASSI, T., AND DWORK, C. Learning fair representa- tions. In International Conference on Machine Learning (2013), pp. 325-333.
  38. ZENKE, F., POOLE, B., AND GANGULI, S. Continual learning through synaptic intelligence. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning-Volume 70 (2017), JMLR. org, pp. 3987-3995.
  39. ZHANG, B. H., LEMOINE, B., AND MITCHELL, M. Mitigating unwanted biases with adver- sarial learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (2018), pp. 335-340.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 5

Metadata

Authors
Hermann, K. L., & Lampinen, A. K.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
References
6
Type
Preprint

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What shapes feature representations? Exploring datasets, architectures, and training. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2006.12433
The paper
Hermann, K. L., & Lampinen, A. K. (2020). What shapes feature representations? Exploring datasets, architectures, and training. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2006.12433