mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Attribution-Based Neuron Utility for Plasticity Restoration in Deep Networks

arXiv 2605.06834 ↗First posted 7 May 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Continual learning research attempts to conserve two fundamental capabilities: new knowledge acquisition and the preservation of previously acquired knowledge. While knowledge in this case can be measured through performance over an implicit or explicit task space, model plasticity generally concerns adaptability as data distributions evolve. Though much of the literature has focused on catastrophic forgetting, deep networks can also suffer from loss of plasticity, becoming progressively harder to update under continued training. Recent research has identified multiple mechanisms underlying this phenomenon, including neuron saturation, parameter norm growth, and loss of useful curvature directions. Adaptive reset-based interventions, which selectively reinitialize low-utility network parameters, have emerged as practical solutions to restore trainability. Existing utility measures used to guide resets, such as activation magnitude, contribution utility, or gradient-based activity, rely on proxy signals that can become misaligned with the intervention they are meant to guide. In this paper, we introduce gradient times difference from reference (GXD), a theoretically motivated utility measure based on reference-based gradient attribution that estimates the first-order functional cost of replacing a unit. Our results show that utility measures aligned with the functional cost of the reset can make interventions more reliable in settings where existing reset criteria degrade. GXD reframes adaptive resetting as an intervention cost estimation problem, providing a practical path toward more robust continual learning systems.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 May 2026.

Builds on

21 of 29 references.

References · 21

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  3. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
  4. 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,458
  5. 2023A Comprehensive Survey of Continual Learning: Theory, Method and Applicationcited by 872
  6. 2017Feature Squeezing: Detecting Adversarial Examples in Deep Neural Networkscited by 486
  7. 2022The Primacy Bias in Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 247
  8. 2023The Dormant Neuron Phenomenon in Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 174
  9. 2019Pruning by Explaining: A Novel Criterion for Deep Neural Network Pruningcited by 89
  10. 2024Disentangling the Causes of Plasticity Loss in Neural Networkscited by 86
  11. 2021Continual Backprop: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Persistent Randomnesscited by 80
  12. 2023Deep Reinforcement Learning with Plasticity Injectioncited by 74
9 more
  1. 2018How Important Is a Neuron?cited by 73
  2. 2023Maintaining Plasticity in Continual Learning via Regenerative Regularizationcited by 65
  3. 2019Neural Network Pruning with Residual-Connections and Limited-Datacited by 52
  4. 2023Maintaining Plasticity in Deep Continual Learningcited by 43
  5. 2024Learning Continually by Spectral Regularizationcited by 34
  6. 2023Directions of Curvature as an Explanation for Loss of Plasticitycited by 26
  7. 2018Computationally Efficient Measures of Internal Neuron Importancecited by 20
  8. 2025Measure gradients, not activations! Enhancing neuronal activity in deep reinforcement learningcited by 14
  9. 2025Reinitializing weights vs units for maintaining plasticity in neural networkscited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.