November 08, 2020
In the context of learning to map an input $I$ to a function $h_I:\mathcal{X}\to \mathbb{R}$, two alternative methods are compared: (i) an embedding-based method, which learns a fixed function in which $I$ is encoded as a conditioning signal $e(I)$ and the learned function takes the form $h_I(x) = q(x,e(I))$, and (ii) hypernetworks, in which the weights $\theta_I$ of the function $h_I(x) = g(x;\theta_I)$ are given by a hypernetwork $f$ as $\theta_I=f(I)$. In this paper, we define the property of modularity as the ability to effectively learn a different function for each input instance $I$. For this purpose, we adopt an expressivity perspective of this property and extend the theory of~\cite{devore} and provide a lower bound on the complexity (number of trainable parameters) of neural networks as function approximators, by eliminating the requirements for the approximation method to be robust. Our results are then used to compare the complexities of $q$ and $g$, showing that under certain conditions and when letting the functions $e$ and $f$ be as large as we wish, $g$ can be smaller than $q$ by orders of magnitude. This sheds light on the modularity of hypernetworks in comparison with the embedding-based method. Besides, we show that for a structured target function, the overall number of trainable parameters in a hypernetwork is smaller by orders of magnitude than the number of trainable parameters of a standard neural network and an embedding method.
Written by
Lior Wolf
Tomer Galanti
Publisher
NeurIPS
November 28, 2022
Nicolas Ballas, Bernhard Schölkopf, Chris Pal, Francesco Locatello, Li Erran, Martin Weiss, Nasim Rahaman, Yoshua Bengio
November 28, 2022
November 27, 2022
Andrea Tirinzoni, Aymen Al Marjani, Emilie Kaufmann
November 27, 2022
November 16, 2022
Kushal Tirumala, Aram H. Markosyan, Armen Aghajanyan, Luke Zettlemoyer
November 16, 2022
November 10, 2022
Unnat Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Himangi Mittal, Pedro Morgado
November 10, 2022
Foundational models
Latest news
Foundational models