mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Massive Redundancy in Gradient Transport Enables Sparse Online Learning

arXiv 2603.15195 ↗First posted 16 Mar 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Real-time recurrent learning (RTRL) computes exact online gradients by propagating a Jacobian tensor forward through recurrent dynamics, but at O(n^4) cost per step. Prior work has sought structured approximations (rank-1 compression, graph-based sparsity, Kronecker factorization). We show that, in the continuous error signal regime, the recurrent Jacobian is massively redundant:propagating through a random 6% of paths (k=4 of n=64) recovers 84 +/- 6% of full RTRL's adaptation ability across five seeds, and the absolute count k=4 remains effective from n=64 to n=256 (6% to 1.6%, recovery 84 to 78%), meaning sparse RTRL becomes relatively cheaper as networks grow. In RNNs, the recovery is selection-invariant (even adversarial path selection works) and exhibits a step-function transition from zero to any nonzero propagation. Spectral analysis reveals the mechanism: the Jacobian is full-rank but near-isotropic (condition numbers 2.6-6.5), so any random subset provides a directionally representative gradient estimate. On chaotic dynamics (Lorenz attractor), sparse propagation is more numerically stable than full RTRL (CV 13% vs. 88%), as subsampling avoids amplifying pathological spectral modes. The redundancy extends to LSTMs (k=4 matches full RTRL) and to transformers via sparse gradient transport (50% head sparsity outperforms the dense reference; 33% is borderline), with higher thresholds reflecting head specialization rather than isotropy. On real primate neural data, sparse RTRL (k=4) adapts online to cross-session electrode drift (80 +/- 11% recovery, 5 seeds), where sparse propagation is again more stable than full RTRL. Without continuous error signal, Jacobian propagation accumulates numerical drift and degrades all RTRL variants, a scope condition for all forward-mode methods. Results hold with SGD (92 +/- 1% recovery), suggesting independence from optimizer choice.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Mar 2026.

Builds on

13 of 23 references.

References · 13

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  3. 2019Analyzing Multi-Head Self-Attention: Specialized Heads Do the Heavy Lifting, the Rest Can Be Prunedcited by 856
  4. 2019Are Sixteen Heads Really Better than One?cited by 816
  5. 2021On the difficulty of learning chaotic dynamics with RNNscited by 67
  6. 2017Unbiased Online Recurrent Optimizationcited by 47
  7. 2019A Unified Framework of Online Learning Algorithms for Training Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 38
  8. 2020Scheduled DropHead: A Regularization Method for Transformer Modelscited by 28
  9. 2023Online learning of long-range dependenciescited by 25
  10. 2019Optimal Kronecker-Sum Approximation of Real Time Recurrent Learningcited by 22
  11. 2023Exploring the Promise and Limits of Real-Time Recurrent Learningcited by 19
  12. 2020A Practical Sparse Approximation for Real Time Recurrent Learningcited by 18
1 more
  1. 2026Greedy-Gnorm: A Gradient Matrix Norm-Based Alternative to Attention Entropy for Head Pruningcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.