Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

What shapes feature representations? Exploring datasets, architectures, and training

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 2006.12433 v2 pith:V7PSEX32 submitted 2020-06-22 cs.LG stat.ML

What shapes feature representations? Exploring datasets, architectures, and training

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

In naturalistic learning problems, a model's input contains a wide range of features, some useful for the task at hand, and others not. Of the useful features, which ones does the model use? Of the task-irrelevant features, which ones does the model represent? Answers to these questions are important for understanding the basis of models' decisions, as well as for building models that learn versatile, adaptable representations useful beyond the original training task. We study these questions using synthetic datasets in which the task-relevance of input features can be controlled directly. We find that when two features redundantly predict the labels, the model preferentially represents one, and its preference reflects what was most linearly decodable from the untrained model. Over training, task-relevant features are enhanced, and task-irrelevant features are partially suppressed. Interestingly, in some cases, an easier, weakly predictive feature can suppress a more strongly predictive, but more difficult one. Additionally, models trained to recognize both easy and hard features learn representations most similar to models that use only the easy feature. Further, easy features lead to more consistent representations across model runs than do hard features. Finally, models have greater representational similarity to an untrained model than to models trained on a different task. Our results highlight the complex processes that determine which features a model represents.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Can Transformers Really Do It All? On the Compatibility of Inductive Biases Across Tasks

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Learned replacement non-linearities show transformers are rarely optimal for algorithmic tasks, with benefits that are task-specific, while language/code gains are smaller and more transferable.