mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Task structure and nonlinearity jointly determine learned representational geometry

arXiv 2401.13558 ↗First posted 24 Jan 2024cs.LGcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The utility of a learned neural representation depends on how well its geometry supports performance in downstream tasks. This geometry depends on the structure of the inputs, the structure of the target outputs, and the architecture of the network. By studying the learning dynamics of networks with one hidden layer, we discovered that the network's activation function has an unexpectedly strong impact on the representational geometry: Tanh networks tend to learn representations that reflect the structure of the target outputs, while ReLU networks retain more information about the structure of the raw inputs. This difference is consistently observed across a broad class of parameterized tasks in which we modulated the degree of alignment between the geometry of the task inputs and that of the task labels. We analyzed the learning dynamics in weight space and show how the differences between the networks with Tanh and ReLU nonlinearities arise from the asymmetric asymptotic behavior of ReLU, which leads feature neurons to specialize for different regions of input space. By contrast, feature neurons in Tanh networks tend to inherit the task label structure. Consequently, when the target outputs are low dimensional, Tanh networks generate neural representations that are more disentangled than those obtained with a ReLU nonlinearity. Our findings shed light on the interplay between input-output geometry, nonlinearity, and learned representations in neural networks.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jan 2024.

Builds on

17 of 29 references.

References · 17

  1. 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,755
  2. 2020Prevalence of Neural Collapse during the terminal phase of deep learning trainingcited by 719
  3. 2020What is being transferred in transfer learning?cited by 368
  4. 2018Towards a Definition of Disentangled Representationscited by 296
  5. 2020Implicit Bias of Gradient Descent for Wide Two-layer Neural Networks Trained with the Logistic Losscited by 268
  6. 2021A Geometric Analysis of Neural Collapse with Unconstrained Featurescited by 227
  7. 2020Feature Learning in Infinite-Width Neural Networkscited by 190
  8. 2020Deep learning versus kernel learning: an empirical study of loss landscape geometry and the time evolution of the Neural Tangent Kernelcited by 187
  9. 2021Neural Networks as Kernel Learners: The Silent Alignment Effectcited by 106
  10. 2019On the Impact of the Activation Function on Deep Neural Networks Trainingcited by 102
  11. 2022Neural Collapse: A Review on Modelling Principles and Generalizationcited by 95
  12. 2022On the Principles of Parsimony and Self-Consistency for the Emergence of Intelligencecited by 50
5 more
  1. 2023Generalized Neural Collapse for a Large Number of Classescited by 39
  2. 2022Limitations of the NTK for Understanding Generalization in Deep Learningcited by 35
  3. 2021A Theory of Neural Tangent Kernel Alignment and Its Influence on Trainingcited by 25
  4. 2020Shallow Univariate ReLu Networks as Splines: Initialization, Loss Surface, Hessian, & Gradient Flow Dynamicscited by 13
  5. 2023Semi-orthogonal subspaces for value mediate a tradeoff between binding and generalizationcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

6 papers.