Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2611.04106

Structure, Dimensionality, and Distribution Shape - What Makes Pretraining Data Transferable, and Why the Input Pipeline Decides Which

Sangyoon Bae·Jiook Cha
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

What makes a pretraining corpus transferable? We describe a corpus by three properties: its structure, its dimensionality, and the distribution shape of each unit's values. We propose the Transfer-Invariance Principle: the same property can be irrelevant to transfer under one input transform and decisive under another, so the model's input transform, not the data modality, decides which properties can matter. To test it we build TransferForge, a generator that places a synthetic population at any prescribed structure, dimensionality, and distribution shape. KernelSynth, the synthetic prior of Chronos, cannot, because it draws independent series. When the model standardizes each input window (PatchTST on UCR), the distribution shape is inert and the structural setting governs. Synthetic pretraining then matches a real corpus of the same size and exceeds it once scaled. When the model encodes calcium fluorescence signals without normalization (POYO Plus), the shape becomes a governing constraint, and a shape-matched synthetic corpus replaces real pretraining with zero real neural activity. Flipping only the input normalization, with the model and data fixed, changes the effect of a shape manipulation by a factor of 5.3, so the pipeline, not the modality, sets the switch. The principle yields a recipe that chooses what to synthesize before any training. Pretraining data then becomes something to manufacture for the model, most valuably where real data is scarce, expensive, or private.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sangyoon Bae, Jiook Cha. 2026-11-03. Structure, Dimensionality, and Distribution Shape - What Makes Pretraining Data Transferable, and Why the Input Pipeline Decides Which. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.04106

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↗