analiza aiqbench
This study distinguishes between generic weight reuse and source-specific structure in implicit neural representations, revealing that ReLU MLPs offer superior selectivity compared to the broad weight reuse seen in SIREN and Fourier-feature models. While Fourier Features demonstrate the highest transfer magnitude, the findings suggest that architecture selection for scientific machine learning must prioritize explicit control conditions over raw transfer metrics. These results establish transfer specificity as a critical diagnostic tool for evaluating coordinate networks across diverse PDE benchmarks.
Architecture Shapes Transfer Specificity in Implicit Neural Representations
arXiv:2606.06827v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Transfer in coordinate networks is often measured by warm-start gain, but whether that gain reflects source-specific structure or generic weight reuse is less clear. We study this question across three implicit neural representation (INR) families, SIREN, ReLU MLPs, and Fourier-feature MLPs, using controlled analytic tests, a 2D lid-driven-cavity Navier--Stokes benchmark, and 1D PDE reference-solution suites for heat, viscous Burgers, and focusing cubic NLS. The analytic tests use independent-seed random controls, while the PDE benchmarks use alternate same-family source controls and auxiliary ablations. Across settings, transfer magnitude and transfer specificity separate clearly. In a 10-seed controlled 1D geometric test, Fourier Features show the largest structured transfer ($33.1\times$), followed by SIREN ($23.0\times$) and ReLU ($10.7\times$), but ReLU is far more selective: random-control transfer is $0.41\times$ for ReLU versus $14.24\times$ for SIREN. On a controlled two-parameter 1D family, the ranking changes: ReLU gives the clearest structured-versus-control separation at default settings, whereas Fourier Features improve only after bandwidth retuning. In Navier--Stokes and the broader 1D PDE suite, no single architecture dominates every equation, yet the same pattern remains: SIREN often reuses weights broadly, whereas ReLU and, in some equations, Fourier Features are more source-selective. Static diagnostics remain weak, and the heuristic scaling law $A_{\text{transfer}} \propto 1/\Delta t^2$ is rejected in the implemented 1D audit. These results position transfer specificity as a useful diagnostic for coordinate networks and suggest that architecture selection in scientific machine learning should be evaluated under explicit control conditions, not by transfer magnitude alone.
Abstract:Transfer in coordinate networks is often measured by warm-start gain, but whether that gain reflects source-specific structure or generic weight reuse is less clear. We study this question across three implicit neural representation (INR) families, SIREN, ReLU MLPs, and Fourier-feature MLPs, using controlled analytic tests, a 2D lid-driven-cavity Navier--Stokes benchmark, and 1D PDE reference-solution suites for heat, viscous Burgers, and focusing cubic NLS. The analytic tests use independent-seed random controls, while the PDE benchmarks use alternate same-family source controls and auxiliary ablations. Across settings, transfer magnitude and transfer specificity separate clearly. In a 10-seed controlled 1D geometric test, Fourier Features show the largest structured transfer ($33.1\times$), followed by SIREN ($23.0\times$) and ReLU ($10.7\times$), but ReLU is far more selective: random-control transfer is $0.41\times$ for ReLU versus $14.24\times$ for SIREN. On a controlled two-parameter 1D family, the ranking changes: ReLU gives the clearest structured-versus-control separation at default settings, whereas Fourier Features improve only after bandwidth retuning. In Navier--Stokes and the broader 1D PDE suite, no single architecture dominates every equation, yet the same pattern remains: SIREN often reuses weights broadly, whereas ReLU and, in some equations, Fourier Features are more source-selective. Static diagnostics remain weak, and the heuristic scaling law $A_{\text{transfer}} \propto 1/\Delta t^2$ is rejected in the implemented 1D audit. These results position transfer specificity as a useful diagnostic for coordinate networks and suggest that architecture selection in scientific machine learning should be evaluated under explicit control conditions, not by transfer magnitude alone.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2606.06827 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2606.06827v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.06827 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 337 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · 27 iul. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026

Story Imprinting: AI Assistants Absorb Traits from Human Characters They Resemble
LessWrong · 21 sept. 2026
ScoutNeRV: Rapid Encoding of Grid-Based Video INRs via ScoutNet
arXiv · 24 sept. 2026