Transferred Discrepancy: Quantifying the Difference Between Representations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Understanding what information neural networks capture is an essential problem in deep learning, and studying whether different models capture similar features is an initial step to achieve this goal. Previous works sought to define metrics over the feature matrices to measure the difference between two models. However, different metrics sometimes lead to contradictory conclusions, and there has been no consensus on which metric is suitable to use in practice. In this work, we propose a novel metric that goes beyond previous approaches. Recall that one of the most practical scenarios of using the learned representations is to apply them to downstream tasks. We argue that we should design the metric based on a similar principle. For that, we introduce the transferred discrepancy (TD), a new metric that defines the difference between two representations based on their downstream-task performance. Through an asymptotic analysis, we show how TD correlates with downstream tasks and the necessity to define metrics in such a task-dependent fashion. In particular, we also show that under specific conditions, the TD metric is closely related to previous metrics. Our experiments show that TD can provide fine-grained information for varied downstream tasks, and for the models trained from different initializations, the learned features are not the same in terms of downstream-task predictions. We find that TD may also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of different training strategies. For example, we demonstrate that the models trained with proper data augmentations that improve the generalization capture more similar features in terms of TD, while those with data augmentations that hurt the generalization will not. This suggests a training strategy that leads to more robust representation also trains models that generalize better.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 3; 2023: 2; 2024: 2.
9 papers.
- 2023Similarity of Neural Network Models: A Survey of Functional and Representational Measurescited by 128
- 2022Toward Transparent AI: A Survey on Interpreting the Inner Structures of Deep Neural Networkscited by 126
- 2022Model Zoos: A Dataset of Diverse Populations of Neural Network Modelscited by 38
- 2021Grounding Representation Similarity with Statistical Testingcited by 28
- 2021Understanding the Dynamics of DNNs Using Graph Modularitycited by 26
- 2022Deconfounded Representation Similarity for Comparison of Neural Networkscited by 18
- 2023Embarassingly Simple Dataset Distillationcited by 5
- 2024Identifying and interpreting non-aligned human conceptual representations using language modelingcited by 0
- 2024Hyper-Representations: Learning from Populations of Neural Networkscited by 0
- 2024Hyper-Representations: Learning from Populations of Neural Networks7 Oct 2024
- 2024Identifying and interpreting non-aligned human conceptual representations using language modeling10 Mar 2024
- 2023Embarassingly Simple Dataset Distillation13 Nov 2023
- 2023Similarity of Neural Network Models: A Survey of Functional and Representational Measures10 May 2023
- 2022Model Zoos: A Dataset of Diverse Populations of Neural Network Models29 Sep 2022
- 2022Toward Transparent AI: A Survey on Interpreting the Inner Structures of Deep Neural Networks27 Jul 2022
- 2022Deconfounded Representation Similarity for Comparison of Neural Networks31 Jan 2022
- 2021Understanding the Dynamics of DNNs Using Graph Modularity24 Nov 2021
- 2021Grounding Representation Similarity with Statistical Testing3 Aug 2021