Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Can Neural Network Memorization Be Localized?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2307.09542 v1 pith:I47DYSAN submitted 2023-07-18 cs.LG cs.CV

Can Neural Network Memorization Be Localized?

classification cs.LG cs.CV
keywords memorizationexampleslayerstextitmodelneuronsconfinedtraining
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent efforts at explaining the interplay of memorization and generalization in deep overparametrized networks have posited that neural networks $\textit{memorize}$ "hard" examples in the final few layers of the model. Memorization refers to the ability to correctly predict on $\textit{atypical}$ examples of the training set. In this work, we show that rather than being confined to individual layers, memorization is a phenomenon confined to a small set of neurons in various layers of the model. First, via three experimental sources of converging evidence, we find that most layers are redundant for the memorization of examples and the layers that contribute to example memorization are, in general, not the final layers. The three sources are $\textit{gradient accounting}$ (measuring the contribution to the gradient norms from memorized and clean examples), $\textit{layer rewinding}$ (replacing specific model weights of a converged model with previous training checkpoints), and $\textit{retraining}$ (training rewound layers only on clean examples). Second, we ask a more generic question: can memorization be localized $\textit{anywhere}$ in a model? We discover that memorization is often confined to a small number of neurons or channels (around 5) of the model. Based on these insights we propose a new form of dropout -- $\textit{example-tied dropout}$ that enables us to direct the memorization of examples to an apriori determined set of neurons. By dropping out these neurons, we are able to reduce the accuracy on memorized examples from $100\%\to3\%$, while also reducing the generalization gap.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Batch Normalization Amplifies Memorization and Privacy Risks

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Batch normalization amplifies memorization of outlier samples in deep neural networks, directly increasing susceptibility to membership inference attacks.

  2. Correcting Influence: Unboxing LLM Outputs with Orthogonal Latent Spaces

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A latent mediation framework with sparse autoencoders enables non-additive token-level influence attribution in LLMs by learning orthogonal features and back-propagating attributions.

  3. Mitigating Membership Inference in Intermediate Representations with Differentially Private Training

    cs.LG 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LM-DP-SGD estimates layer-specific MIA risks from shadow models and reweights gradients to give stronger protection to vulnerable layers, improving the privacy-utility trade-off over uniform DP-SGD.