analiza aiqbench
This research reveals a critical asymmetry in structural plasticity where dynamically grown units often suffer from "backward starvation," receiving weaker gradient signals than incumbent neurons during optimization. While growth methods can achieve high final accuracy in specific settings, they do not automatically yield superior subnetworks compared to pruning, particularly when performance is averaged over the training trajectory. The findings suggest that evaluating structural editing requires a time-sensitive optimization lens rather than treating it merely as an architecture search operator.
On the Stability of Growth in Structural Plasticity
arXiv:2605.15435v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Standard deep-learning pipelines usually choose the network architecture before training and keep it fixed throughout optimization. In contrast, a model can also be adapted by editing its structure during training, for example by pruning existing hidden-neuron units or growing new ones. Although growth is appealing for adaptive and continual systems, we show that it is not simply the inverse of pruning. Pruning selects among units that have participated in training from the start, whereas growth inserts new units into an already specialized optimization trajectory. We isolate this insertion problem and show that newborn units are often forward-active but backward-starved: they participate in the forward computation, yet receive much weaker gradient signal than incumbent units. This disadvantage is minor in small MLP benchmarks, but becomes clear in harder image-classification settings with a convolutional trunk. In these settings, \textsc{Grow} can achieve high final accuracy during the structural-editing procedure, while \textsc{Prune} is stronger when performance is averaged over the training trajectory or when the final sparse network is retrained from scratch. Interventions targeting optimizer state, insertion, selection, and trainability show that improving the integration of newborn units can improve adaptive performance, but does not automatically produce better final subnetworks. In continual-learning benchmarks stressing plasticity loss, \textsc{Grow} becomes competitive mainly when new units have enough time to integrate. Together, these results suggest that \textsc{Grow} should be evaluated not only as an architecture-search operator, but as a time-sensitive optimization process whose success depends on insertion stability.
Abstract:Standard deep-learning pipelines usually choose the network architecture before training and keep it fixed throughout optimization. In contrast, a model can also be adapted by editing its structure during training, for example by pruning existing hidden-neuron units or growing new ones. Although growth is appealing for adaptive and continual systems, we show that it is not simply the inverse of pruning. Pruning selects among units that have participated in training from the start, whereas growth inserts new units into an already specialized optimization trajectory. We isolate this insertion problem and show that newborn units are often forward-active but backward-starved: they participate in the forward computation, yet receive much weaker gradient signal than incumbent units. This disadvantage is minor in small MLP benchmarks, but becomes clear in harder image-classification settings with a convolutional trunk. In these settings, \textsc{Grow} can achieve high final accuracy during the structural-editing procedure, while \textsc{Prune} is stronger when performance is averaged over the training trajectory or when the final sparse network is retrained from scratch. Interventions targeting optimizer state, insertion, selection, and trainability show that improving the integration of newborn units can improve adaptive performance, but does not automatically produce better final subnetworks. In continual-learning benchmarks stressing plasticity loss, \textsc{Grow} becomes competitive mainly when new units have enough time to integrate. Together, these results suggest that \textsc{Grow} should be evaluated not only as an architecture-search operator, but as a time-sensitive optimization process whose success depends on insertion stability.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Neural and Evolutionary Computing (cs.NE)
arXiv:2605.15435 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2605.15435v2 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.15435 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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 · 338 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Self-Motivated Growing Neural Network for Adaptive Architecture via Local Structural Plasticity
arXiv · 28 iul. 2026
SoftModel: A Neural Model That Grows Its Own Topology -- Governed Structural Growth for Continual In-Service Learning
arXiv · 19 aug. 2026
Does preservation make sense before we know how to revive?
LessWrong · 15 iun. 2026
On the Stability of Growth in Structural Plasticity: Forward-Active yet Backward-Starved
arXiv · 6 oct. 2026