Why CNN Features Are not Gaussian: A Statistical Anatomy of Deep Representations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are commonly analyzed through geometric and linear-algebraic perspectives, yet the statistical distribution of their internal feature activations remains poorly understood. In many applications, deep features are implicitly treated as Gaussian when modeling densities. In this work, we empirically examine this assumption and show that it does not accurately describe the distribution of CNN feature activations. Through a systematic study across multiple architectures and datasets, we find that the feature activations deviate substantially from Gaussian and are better characterized by Weibull and related long-tailed distributions. We further introduce a novel Discretized Characteristic Function Copula (DCF-Copula) method to model multivariate feature dependencies. We find that tail-length increases with network depth and that upper-tail dependence emerges between feature pairs. These statistical findings are not consistent with the Central Limit Theorem, and are instead indicative of a Matthew process that progressively concentrates semantic signal within the tails. These statistical findings suggest that CNNs are excellent at noise reduction, yet poor at outlier removal tasks. We recommend the use of long-tailed upper-tail-dependent priors as opposed to Gaussian priors for accurately CNN deep feature density. Code available at https://github.com/dchapman-prof/DCF-Copula
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Nov 2024.
Builds on
20 of 36 references.
References · 20
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,364
- 2018A Simple Unified Framework for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples and Adversarial Attackscited by 1,485
- 2020Energy-based Out-of-distribution Detectioncited by 1,299
- 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 971
- 2016Improving Variational Inference with Inverse Autoregressive Flowcited by 640
- 2020What Neural Networks Memorize and Why: Discovering the Long Tail via Influence Estimationcited by 497
- 2019Does Learning Require Memorization? A Short Tale about a Long Tailcited by 460
- 2018Do Deep Generative Models Know What They Don't Know?cited by 443
- 2015Learning Deconvolution Network for Semantic Segmentationcited by 365
- 2023WinCLIP: Zero-/Few-Shot Anomaly Classification and Segmentationcited by 315
8 more
- 2020Towards Understanding Ensemble, Knowledge Distillation and Self-Distillation in Deep Learningcited by 297
- 2023AnomalyCLIP: Object-agnostic Prompt Learning for Zero-shot Anomaly Detectioncited by 271
- 2020Modeling the Distribution of Normal Data in Pre-Trained Deep Features for Anomaly Detectioncited by 115
- 2021Understanding Failures in Out-of-Distribution Detection with Deep Generative Modelscited by 89
- 2022Boosting Out-of-distribution Detection with Typical Featurescited by 48
- 2020Perfect density models cannot guarantee anomaly detectioncited by 39
- 2022Self-Supervised Anomaly Detection in Computer Vision and Beyond: A Survey and Outlookcited by 24
- 2024A Method of Moments Embedding Constraint and its Application to Semi-Supervised Learningcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.