Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Theoretical Analysis of Inductive Biases in Deep Convolutional Networks

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 2305.08404 v2 pith:JMOY5CB4 submitted 2023-05-15 cs.LG stat.ML

classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords cnnssampleslcnsmathcalnetworkssharingweightbiases
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

In this paper, we provide a theoretical analysis of the inductive biases in convolutional neural networks (CNNs). We start by examining the universality of CNNs, i.e., the ability to approximate any continuous functions. We prove that a depth of $\mathcal{O}(\log d)$ suffices for deep CNNs to achieve this universality, where $d$ in the input dimension. Additionally, we establish that learning sparse functions with CNNs requires only $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(\log^2d)$ samples, indicating that deep CNNs can efficiently capture {\em long-range} sparse correlations. These results are made possible through a novel combination of the multichanneling and downsampling when increasing the network depth. We also delve into the distinct roles of weight sharing and locality in CNNs. To this end, we compare the performance of CNNs, locally-connected networks (LCNs), and fully-connected networks (FCNs) on a simple regression task, where LCNs can be viewed as CNNs without weight sharing. On the one hand, we prove that LCNs require ${\Omega}(d)$ samples while CNNs need only $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(\log^2d)$ samples, highlighting the critical role of weight sharing. On the other hand, we prove that FCNs require $\Omega(d^2)$ samples, whereas LCNs need only $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(d)$ samples, underscoring the importance of locality. These provable separations quantify the difference between the two biases, and the major observation behind our proof is that weight sharing and locality break different symmetries in the learning process.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 7 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. On the Sample Complexity of One Hidden Layer Networks with Equivariance, Locality and Weight Sharing

    cs.LG 2024-11 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    For one-hidden-layer equivariant networks, generalization bounds depend only on filter norms and the sample size, while suitable weight sharing can match equivariance and locality adds an extra gain.

Pith tools