Useful to Whom? The Easy-versus-Coverage Boundary Moves with the Learner

Yangze Liu; Xiao-Long Yin; Zhongyi Han

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.00221

Useful to Whom? The Easy-versus-Coverage Boundary Moves with the Learner

Yangze Liu·Xiao-Long Yin·Zhongyi Han

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Is the same data equally useful to every learner? The question is whether the value of a training sample belongs to the sample or arises in its interaction with the learner. We test it with a selection experiment. Under a per-class budget, two kinds of samples compete for the slots: easy samples, which a short training run learns first, and coverage samples, which spread over the class in feature space. Easy samples win at small budgets and coverage samples at large ones, and the budget at which the winner flips, the crossover m0, can be measured. We ask whether m0 is set by the data or by the learner. To separate the two, we freeze the selected subsets and change only the learner that trains on them. On low-resolution ImageNet-100, doubling the width of a ResNet-18 moves the crossover from 57 to 85 samples per class on the same subsets. Enlarging the input grid from 32 to 64 pixels at fixed image information moves it from 85 to 57, and a single stride change reproduces or removes this shift. The grid shift shrinks as width grows. Under the native ImageNet-1k protocol, a 4x range of width moves the boundary by at most a few samples per class. On a Vision Transformer, coverage wins at every measured budget, even with easy subsets that work on the convolutional learner. The budget at which one kind of sample stops being the more useful kind therefore belongs to the learner, and the preferred regime of a selection strategy has to be read against the learner that will use the data.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Yangze Liu, Xiao-Long Yin, Zhongyi Han. 2026-10-09. Useful to Whom? The Easy-versus-Coverage Boundary Moves with the Learner. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.00221

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Subspace Node Pruning

Node pruning is the art of removing computational units such as neurons, filters, attention heads, or even entire layers to significantly reduce inference time while retaining network performance. In this work, we show that a broad family of importance measures, from activation-based to Fisher-based, share a common quadratic form. Through a lower-triangular change of basis, this form yields a pruning subspace in which entire nodes can be removed while the impact of the lost units is simultaneously recovered via linear least squares. Furthermore, the importance measures within our subspace are decoupled and additive through an orthogonalization of the layer activations, allowing multi-node pruning within layers without interference between importance scores. Our method, Subspace Node Pruning (SNP), outperforms the compared baselines on VGG-16 and ResNet-50 on ImageNet. On OPT-125M and LLaMA-2 7B, SNP matches the state-of-the-art LLM Surgeon at a 40-shot schedule and outperforms it whenever fewer shots are used, all without any retraining after pruning.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

On the growth of the parameters of approximating ReLU neural networks

This work focuses on the analysis of fully connected feed forward ReLU neural networks as they approximate a given, smooth function. In contrast to conventionally studied universal approximation properties under increasing architectures, e.g., in terms of width or depth of the networks, we are concerned with the asymptotic growth of the parameters of approximating networks. Such results are of interest, e.g., for error analysis or consistency results for neural network training. The main result of our work is that, for a ReLU architecture with state of the art approximation error, the realizing parameters grow at most polynomially. The obtained rate with respect to a normalized network size is compared to existing results and is shown to be superior in most cases, in particular for high dimensional input.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Correlations Are Ruining Your Gradient Descent

Natural gradient descent, and the preconditioned optimizers which have followed from it, correct gradient descent by estimating curvature and applying its inverse to the gradient. For any single layer of a deep neural network, this correction can be shown to approximately separate into two factors: one which accounts for correlations in the gradient signal, and one which accounts for correlations in the data arriving at that layer. Herein we show that this second factor can be expressed as a change of basis rather than of curvature and, considered thus, it can be removed from the optimizer entirely and placed within the network itself. Specifically, we show that, once forward weights are corrected, right-sided natural gradient descent can be implemented in a form which has three exactly equivalent forms: a gradient preconditioner, a decorrelating linear transform in the forward pass, or a set of recurrent dynamics in which all updates are Hebbian and rely only upon locally available signals. The (recurrent) decorrelation method we discover aligns closely with proposed methods for inhibitory learning and homeostatic plasticity in the brain. Notably, our transform requires no matrix inverse, no matrix decomposition, and no information beyond that which is available at an individual synapse. It can therefore be applied in distributed and physically constrained systems, including neuromorphic hardware and nervous systems, where existing preconditioners cannot. We demonstrate its effectiveness empirically in convolutional and residual network models while significantly improving a range of approximate biologically plausible methods for credit assignment.

cs.LG↗