Do Deep Networks Forget Initialization? A Forgetting-Time View of Practical Inductive Bias
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:Do Deep Networks Forget Initialization? A Forgetting-Time View of Practical Inductive Bias
Abstract:Randomly initialized neural networks induce a prior over functions, but the predictor used in practice is produced only after training. We ask how much of this initial bias survives the training pipeline. To make the question measurable, we introduce initialization memory: the dependence of the validation-selected predictor on the scale of the random initialization. We perform controlled CIFAR-10 experiments on ResNets where initialization memory already sharply separates training regimes. Low-learning-rate SGD can interpolate while still remembering its initialization: on ResNet-9 with batch size $b=128$, test accuracy varies by $26.5$ percentage points across initialization scales despite $\ge99.5\%$ training accuracy. This is not undertraining: extending the same low-learning-rate regime to $5{,}000$ epochs leaves the spread essentially unchanged. In contrast, Adam-family methods largely erase the dependence. SGD can also be made to forget when larger learning rates are paired with explicit $L_2$ norm control. We interpret these findings in terms of the time scale of forgetting: gradient-flow-like dynamics can preserve initialization memory, whereas stochastic finite-step effects, explicit norm decay, and adaptive preconditioning erase it on scales governed by the size of explicit or implicit regularization. The practical inductive bias of a trained network is therefore not the architectural prior alone, but the architectural prior after being filtered by the forgetting dynamics of the training pipeline; and the same regularizers that improve generalization are precisely those that erase memory of initialization.
| Comments: | 39 pages, 9 figures |
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG); Optimization and Control (math.OC); Machine Learning (stat.ML) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2605.29152 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2605.29152v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.29152
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Submission history
From: Pierfrancesco Beneventano [view email][v1] Wed, 27 May 2026 22:30:39 UTC (1,311 KB)
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Current browse context:
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
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.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
One Mask to Rule Them All: On Hidden Facts after Editing and How to Find Them
May 29
-
Representation Signatures and Risk-Feedback Alignment in LLM Trading Agents
May 29
-
Mechanistic origins of catastrophic forgetting: why RL preserves circuits better than SFT?
May 29
-
Molecular Lead Optimization via Agentic Tool Planning
May 29
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.