Loss-Invariant Projections as Passive Probes of Learned Representations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Learned feature representations in neural networks often contain structure beyond that directly used by the final task output. We study this structure using textitpassive probes that apply fixed, untrained, property-independent projections to representations as they evolve during training. We motivate this approach through the task of prediction on S2 where equivalent vector and Hermitian parameterizations reveal an additional loss-invariant trace coordinate. This motivates a general construction in which fixed random projections serve as observers of learned features. Because the observer is loss-invariant and independent of the property being studied, changes in accessibility reflect changes in the representation relative to the fixed observer rather than adaptation of the observer itself. We show that ensembles of passive probes can directly reflect task-relevant information such as target alignment. Under our constructions, the accessibility of eventual difficulty evolves differently across tasks. It increases during training in the regression tasks of surface-normal estimation and image inpainting but remains near its initial level in image classification. Comparisons with learned linear probes further show that recoverability and passive accessibility can evolve differently during training. Together, these results show how passive probes can separately characterize changes in representation geometry and the accessibility of eventual task difficulty.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.
Builds on
12 of 18 references.
References · 12
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
- 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 12,049
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,755
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 876
- 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 640
- 2018What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic propertiescited by 457
- 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 455
- 2020Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description Lengthcited by 232
- 2024Rethinking Inductive Biases for Surface Normal Estimationcited by 124
- 2021Probing as Quantifying Inductive Biascited by 12
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Into the Rabbit Hull: From Task-Relevant Concepts in DINO to Minkowski Geometry
- 2023Diffused Redundancy in Pre-trained Representations
- 2026Deep Minds and Shallow Probes
- 2026Attentive multilayer fusion for vision transformers
- 2024Unlearning-based Neural Interpretations
- 2025On the Separability of Information in Diffusion Models
- 2023Beyond Surface Statistics: Scene Representations in a Latent Diffusion Model
- 2025The Non-Linear Representation Dilemma: Is Causal Abstraction Enough for Mechanistic Interpretability?