mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Multi-Narrow Transformation as a Single-Model Ensemble: Boundary Conditions, Mechanisms, and Failure Modes

arXiv 2605.11530 ↗First posted 12 May 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Single-model ensembles (SMEs) have attracted attention as a way to approximate some of the benefits of deep ensembles within a single network. However, under an approximately matched parameter budget, it remains unclear whether model capacity should be concentrated in a single wide pathway or redistributed into many narrow and independent members. We investigate this question through the Multi-Narrow (MN) transformation, which converts a baseline CNN into an SME of narrow, path-wise independent branches while approximately preserving the dominant parameter budget. We systematically compare Single-Wide and Multi-Narrow configurations across different training-data regimes, architectures, and datasets. The results show that the effectiveness of MN is strongly data-dependent: weakly partitioned or baseline-wide models are preferable in data-rich settings, whereas highly partitioned MN models consistently outperform the baseline in low-data settings. This tendency is reproduced across multiple CNN architectures and image-classification datasets, suggesting that it is not specific to a single benchmark or model family. Analysis of internal representations shows that high-MN models learn more diverse and less redundant path-wise features. In low-data regimes, this diversity is broadly utilized and improves generalization, whereas in data-rich regimes, training becomes imbalanced and prediction is dominated by a small subset of paths. These findings clarify when and why Multi-Narrow transformation is effective, and provide practical guidance for allocating model capacity between width and member multiplicity under a limited budget.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.

Builds on

22 of 34 references.

References · 22

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2019EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 6,415
  3. 2016SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restartscited by 4,993
  4. 2018MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottleneckscited by 4,773
  5. 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,888
  6. 2016Wide Residual Networkscited by 3,057
  7. 2016Aggregated Residual Transformations for Deep Neural Networkscited by 2,540
  8. 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,695
  9. 2017Accurate, Large Minibatch SGD: Training ImageNet in 1 Hourcited by 1,479
  10. 2020Designing Network Design Spacescited by 954
  11. 2017Don't Decay the Learning Rate, Increase the Batch Sizecited by 313
  12. 2020Pitfalls of In-Domain Uncertainty Estimation and Ensembling in Deep Learningcited by 208
10 more
  1. 2023A Unified Theory of Diversity in Ensemble Learningcited by 71
  2. 2020Peer Collaborative Learning for Online Knowledge Distillationcited by 58
  3. 2022Packed-Ensembles for Efficient Uncertainty Estimationcited by 49
  4. 2023Joint Training of Deep Ensembles Fails Due to Learner Collusioncited by 23
  5. 2020Towards Better Accuracy-efficiency Trade-offs: Divide and Co-trainingcited by 12
  6. 2017Coupled Ensembles of Neural Networkscited by 8
  7. 2020Group Ensemble: Learning an Ensemble of ConvNets in a single ConvNetcited by 8
  8. 2020Deep Ensembles on a Fixed Memory Budget: One Wide Network or Several Thinner Ones?cited by 6
  9. 2022Easy Ensemble: Simple Deep Ensemble Learning for Sensor-Based Human Activity Recognitioncited by 2
  10. 2022Deep Negative Correlation Classificationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.