We describe a procedure for removing dependency on a cohort of training data from a trained deep network that improves upon and generalizes previous methods to different readout functions and can be extended to ensure forgetting in the activations of the network. We introduce a new bound on how much information can be extracted per query about the forgotten cohort from a black-box network for which only the input-output behavior is observed. The proposed forgetting procedure has a deterministic part derived from the differential equations of a linearized version of the model, and a stochastic part that ensures information destruction by adding noise tailored to the geometry of the loss landscape. We exploit the connections between the activation and weight dynamics of a DNN inspired by Neural Tangent Kernels to compute the information in the activations.
We present a detector for curved text in natural images. We model scene text instances as tubes around their medial axes and introduce a parametrization-invariant loss function. We train a two-stage curved text detector, and evaluate it on the curved text benchmarks CTW-1500 and Total-Text. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art results or improves upon them, notably for CTW-1500 by over 8 percentage points in F-score.
We explore the problem of selectively forgetting a particular set of data used for training a deep neural network. While the effects of the data to be forgotten can be hidden from the output of the network, insights may still be gleaned by probing deep into its weights. We propose a method for "scrubbing" the weights clean of information about a particular set of training data. The method does not require retraining from scratch, nor access to the data originally used for training. Instead, the weights are modified so that any probing function of the weights, computed with no knowledge of the random seed used for training, is indistinguishable from the same function applied to the weights of a network trained without the data to be forgotten. This condition is a generalized and weaker form of Differential Privacy. Exploiting ideas related to the stability of stochastic gradient descent, we introduce an upper-bound on the amount of information remaining in the weights, which can be estimated efficiently even for deep neural networks.
We explore the problem of selectively forgetting a particular set of data used for training a deep neural network. While the effects of the data to be forgotten can be hidden from the output of the network, insights may still be gleaned by probing deep into its weights. We propose a method for ``scrubbing'' the weights clean of information about a particular set of training data. The method does not require retraining from scratch, nor access to the data originally used for training. Instead, the weights are modified so that any probing function of the weights, computed with no knowledge of the random seed used for training, is indistinguishable from the same function applied to the weights of a network trained without the data to be forgotten. This condition is weaker than Differential Privacy, which seeks protection against adversaries that have access to the entire training process, and is more appropriate for deep learning, where a potential adversary might have access to the trained network, but generally, have no knowledge of how it was trained.
We study the relationship between catastrophic forgetting and properties of task sequences. In particular, given a sequence of tasks, we would like to understand which properties of this sequence influence the error rates of continual learning algorithms trained on the sequence. To this end, we propose a new procedure that makes use of recent developments in task space modeling as well as correlation analysis to specify and analyze the properties we are interested in. As an application, we apply our procedure to study two properties of a task sequence: (1) total complexity and (2) sequential heterogeneity. We show that error rates are strongly and positively correlated to a task sequence's total complexity for some state-of-the-art algorithms. We also show that, surprisingly, the error rates have no or even negative correlations in some cases to sequential heterogeneity. Our findings suggest directions for improving continual learning benchmarks and methods.
Whatever information a Deep Neural Network has gleaned from past data is encoded in its weights. How this information affects the response of the network to future data is largely an open question. In fact, even how to define and measure information in a network is still not settled. We introduce the notion of Information in the Weights as the optimal trade-off between accuracy of the network and complexity of the weights, relative to a prior. Depending on the prior, the definition reduces to known information measures such as Shannon Mutual Information and Fisher Information, but affords added flexibility that enables us to relate it to generalization, via the PAC-Bayes bound, and to invariance. This relation hinges not only on the architecture of the model, but surprisingly on how it is trained. We then introduce a notion of effective information in the activations, which are deterministic functions of future inputs, resolving inconsistencies in prior work. We relate this to the Information in the Weights, and use this result to show that models of low complexity not only generalize better, but are bound to learn invariant representations of future inputs.
Regularization is typically understood as improving generalization by altering the landscape of local extrema to which the model eventually converges. Deep neural networks (DNNs), however, challenge this view: We show that removing regularization after an initial transient period has little effect on generalization, even if the final loss landscape is the same as if there had been no regularization. In some cases, generalization even improves after interrupting regularization. Conversely, if regularization is applied only after the initial transient, it has no effect on the final solution, whose generalization gap is as bad as if regularization never happened. This suggests that what matters for training deep networks is not just whether or how, but when to regularize. The phenomena we observe are manifest in different datasets (CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100), different architectures (ResNet-18, All-CNN), different regularization methods (weight decay, data augmentation), different learning rate schedules (exponential, piece-wise constant). They collectively suggest that there is a ``critical period'' for regularizing deep networks that is decisive of the final performance. More analysis should, therefore, focus on the transient rather than asymptotic behavior of learning.