Role of Locality and Weight Sharing in Image-Based Tasks: A Sample Complexity Separation between CNNs, LCNs, and FCNs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Vision tasks are characterized by the properties of locality and translation invariance. The superior performance of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) on these tasks is widely attributed to the inductive bias of locality and weight sharing baked into their architecture. Existing attempts to quantify the statistical benefits of these biases in CNNs over locally connected convolutional neural networks (LCNs) and fully connected neural networks (FCNs) fall into one of the following categories: either they disregard the optimizer and only provide uniform convergence upper bounds with no separating lower bounds, or they consider simplistic tasks that do not truly mirror the locality and translation invariance as found in real-world vision tasks. To address these deficiencies, we introduce the Dynamic Signal Distribution (DSD) classification task that models an image as consisting of k patches, each of dimension d, and the label is determined by a d-sparse signal vector that can freely appear in any one of the k patches. On this task, for any orthogonally equivariant algorithm like gradient descent, we prove that CNNs require tildeO(k+d) samples, whereas LCNs require Omega(kd) samples, establishing the statistical advantages of weight sharing in translation invariant tasks. Furthermore, LCNs need tildeO(k(k+d)) samples, compared to Omega(k2d) samples for FCNs, showcasing the benefits of locality in local tasks. Additionally, we develop information theoretic tools for analyzing randomized algorithms, which may be of interest for statistical research.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Mar 2024.
Builds on
8 of 17 references.
References · 8
- 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,579
- 2018Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisalcited by 217
- 2019Generalization bounds for deep convolutional neural networkscited by 59
- 2020Why Are Convolutional Nets More Sample-Efficient than Fully-Connected Nets?cited by 34
- 2023Theoretical Analysis of Inductive Biases in Deep Convolutional Networkscited by 21
- 2020Computational Separation Between Convolutional and Fully-Connected Networkscited by 20
- 2018How Many Samples are Needed to Estimate a Convolutional or Recurrent Neural Network?cited by 19
- 2022The Sample Complexity of One-Hidden-Layer Neural Networkscited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 4.
5 papers.
- 2026Does Sparse Connectivity Improve Generalization? Convolutional Networks Below the Edge of Stabilitycited by 1
- 2025Towards High-Fidelity Gaussian Splatting with Queried-Convolution Neural Networkscited by 0
- 2026Representation Redundancy and Structural Complexity in Finite-Field Inversioncited by 0
- 2026The Computational Value of Sensory-Aligned Receptive Fields Depends on Neuronal Expressivitycited by 0
- 2026ConvCue: Complementary Visual Inductive Biases for Vision-Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026ConvCue: Complementary Visual Inductive Biases for Vision-Language Models28 Sep 2026
- 2026The Computational Value of Sensory-Aligned Receptive Fields Depends on Neuronal Expressivity22 Sep 2026
- 2026Representation Redundancy and Structural Complexity in Finite-Field Inversion4 Sep 2026
- 2026Does Sparse Connectivity Improve Generalization? Convolutional Networks Below the Edge of Stability5 Mar 2026
- 2025Towards High-Fidelity Gaussian Splatting with Queried-Convolution Neural Networks15 Dec 2025