mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Task Relevance Is Not Local Replaceability: A Two-Axis View of Channel Information

arXiv 2605.07086 ↗First posted 8 May 2026cs.CV cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Channel importance in vision networks is usually summarized by a single score. That summary hides two different questions: how much a channel is related to the task, and whether its function can be supplied by same-layer peers when the channel is removed. We call the second property local replaceability. We introduce a two-axis view that separates these questions. The local axis measures input capture and peer overlap, while the target axis measures task information and target-excess information. Across ResNet-18, VGG-16, and MobileNetV2 trained on CIFAR-100, the two axes are weakly aligned, induce different channel groupings, and separate rapidly during training despite being strongly coupled at random initialization. A Gaussian linear analysis accounts for how this separation can arise through residualized gradient directions, and lesion plus peer-replacement experiments show that peer support refines removability beyond input capture and task relevance alone. Under the fixed FLOPs-matched pruning protocol, local-axis metrics are more reliable predictors of removability than target-axis metrics across the three CIFAR-100 backbones, with the same direction preserved in stress tests on CIFAR-10, Tiny-ImageNet, ImageNet-100, and a ConvNeXt-T/ImageNet-100 pilot. These findings identify an axis-level distinction rather than a universal ranking of pruning scores: local replaceability is a more reliable guide to removability than target relevance, while norm-based baselines remain competitive in architectures such as VGG-16. Relevance-based scores ask what a channel says about the task; pruning asks whether the network still needs that channel when its peers remain available.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 May 2026.

Builds on

18 of 31 references.

References · 18

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
  3. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  4. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
  5. 2018MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottleneckscited by 4,773
  6. 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,545
  7. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
  8. 2016Pruning Filters for Efficient ConvNetscited by 1,129
  9. 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 928
  10. 2019Importance Estimation for Neural Network Pruningcited by 531
  11. 2017Opening the Black Box of Deep Neural Networks via Informationcited by 494
  12. 2017ThiNet: A Filter Level Pruning Method for Deep Neural Network Compressioncited by 438
6 more
  1. 2018Filter Pruning via Geometric Median for Deep Convolutional Neural Networks Accelerationcited by 365
  2. 2021CHIP: CHannel Independence-based Pruning for Compact Neural Networkscited by 76
  3. 2022Revisiting Random Channel Pruning for Neural Network Compressioncited by 50
  4. 2014Exploration of synergistic and redundant information sharing in static and dynamical Gaussian systemscited by 15
  5. 2024Mutual Information Preserving Neural Network Pruningcited by 5
  6. 2024Partial Information Decomposition for Data Interpretability and Feature Selectioncited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.