Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Neural Network Memorization Dissection

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 1911.09537 v1 pith:ZDL54TIQ submitted 2019-11-21 cs.LG stat.ML

Neural Network Memorization Dissection

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

Deep neural networks (DNNs) can easily fit a random labeling of the training data with zero training error. What is the difference between DNNs trained with random labels and the ones trained with true labels? Our paper answers this question with two contributions. First, we study the memorization properties of DNNs. Our empirical experiments shed light on how DNNs prioritize the learning of simple input patterns. In the second part, we propose to measure the similarity between what different DNNs have learned and memorized. With the proposed approach, we analyze and compare DNNs trained on data with true labels and random labels. The analysis shows that DNNs have \textit{One way to Learn} and \textit{N ways to Memorize}. We also use gradient information to gain an understanding of the analysis results.

discussion (0)

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