Transfer learning with models pretrained on ImageNet has become a standard practice in computer vision. Transfer learning refers to fine-tuning pretrained weights of a neural network on a downstream task, typically unrelated to ImageNet. However, pretrained weights can become saturated and may yield insignificant gradients, failing to adapt to the downstream task. This hinders the ability of the model to train effectively, and is commonly referred to as loss of neural plasticity. Loss of plasticity may prevent the model from fully adapting to the target domain, especially when the downstream dataset is atypical in nature. While this issue has been widely explored in continual learning, it remains relatively understudied in the context of transfer learning. In this work, we propose the use of a targeted weight re-initialization strategy to restore neural plasticity prior to fine-tuning. Our experiments show that both convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and vision transformers (ViTs) benefit from this approach, yielding higher test accuracy with faster convergence on several image classification benchmarks. Our method introduces negligible computational overhead and is compatible with common transfer learning pipelines.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Number of Classes
Images per Class
Total Images
DTD
47
120
5640
Brain Tumor
4
1600-2000
7150
Fruit25
25
450
11250
Table 1: The number of classes, number of images per class and total number of images within each dataset.
Model
Number of Parameters
SimpleNet
0.5 million
ResNet-50
25.6 million
ViT-B16
86.6 million
Table 2: Total number of trainable parameters per model.
Dataset
Experimental Case
Accuracy ±
Std
Epochs ±
Std
10 M
60.355 ±
1.148
96.000 ±
9.110
DTD
10 MN
59.734 ±
1.684
88.000 ±
20.736
5 MN
59.220 ±
0.251
88.500 ±
6.364
Base
57.926 ±
1.463
89.400 ±
5.899
Base
96.087 ±
0.781
169.167 ±
61.411
Brain Tumor
10 MN
95.304 ±
0.583
107.200 ±
18.102
Table 3: A comparison between plasticity-restoring experimental cases and the base case on the SimpleNet model. The specific experimental cases are listed using the notation defined in Section 3.1 . The results are ordered by accuracy, and the base case is indicated in bold.
Dataset
Experimental Case
Accuracy ±
Std
Epochs ±
Std
5 M
72.030 ±
0.564
129.000 ±
58.387
DTD
Base
71.738 ±
1.915
218.400 ±
69.984
10 MN
71.223 ±
1.083
139.400 ±
26.557
10 M
70.626 ±
1.242
133.667 ±
35.698
10 M
95.584 ±
0.581
113.800 ±
14.822
Brain Tumor
25 M
95.312 ±
1.434
115.167 ±
44.640
Table 4: A comparison between plasticity-restoring experimental cases and the base case on the ResNet-50 model. The specific experimental cases are listed using the notation defined in Section 3.1 . The results are ordered by accuracy, and the base case is indicated in bold.
Dataset
Experimental Case
Accuracy ±
Std
Epochs ±
Std
5 M
71.809 ±
0.862
95.600 ±
15.010
DTD
Base
71.649 ±
0.887
97.800 ±
18.185
5 MN
71.596 ±
0.563
89.400 ±
5.814
25 MN
71.241 ±
0.437
90.000 ±
6.745
25 M
98.001 ±
0.390
70.100 ±
17.559
Brain Tumor
5 MN
97.918 ±
0.415
65.200 ±
15.959
Table 5: A comparison between plasticity-restoring experimental cases and the base case on the ViT-B16 model. The specific experimental cases are listed using the notation defined in Section 3.1 . The results are ordered by accuracy, and the base case is indicated in bold.
Dataset
SimpleNet
ResNet-50
ViT-B16
DTD
[2.4;+7]
[0.3;-90]
[0.15;-2]
Brain Tumor
[−0.7;−62]
[0.5;-5]
[0.4;+5]
Fruit25
[0.5;-18]
[0.9;-9]
[0.7;+4]
Table 6: Best runs across all datasets and architectures, presented as tuples. The first element in the tuple is the gain or loss in the best accuracy for a model, and the second element is the corresponding gain or loss in epochs for that best experimental case. Tuples with both a gain in plasticity and decrease in epoch (improved convergence rate) are indicated in bold.
Figure 1: Comparison between 25 M (a) and 25 N (b) experimental cases. The blue histogram is the total weight distribution after training on the base case. The green histogram represents the total weight distribution after fine-tuning in the experimental cases. The red histogram shows the absolute difference between the blue and green histograms and the final histogram overlays the blue and green histograms for easy comparison between base and experimental cases.
Loss of plasticity refers to the progressive inability of a model to adapt to new tasks and poses a fundamental challenge for continual learning. While this phenomenon has been extensively studied in homogeneous neural architectures, such as multilayer perceptrons, its mechanisms in structurally heterogeneous, attention-based models such as Vision Transformers (ViTs) remain underexplored. In this work, we present a systematic investigation of loss of plasticity in ViTs, including a fine-grained diagnosis using local metrics that capture parameter diversity and utilization. Our analysis reveals that stacked attention modules exhibit increasing instability that exacerbates plasticity loss, while feed-forward network modules suffer even more pronounced degradation. Furthermore, we evaluate several approaches for mitigating plasticity loss. The results indicate that methods based on parameter re-initialization fail to recover plasticity in ViTs, whereas approaches that explicitly regulate the update process are more effective. Motivated by this insight, we propose ARROW, a geometry-aware optimizer that preserves plasticity by adaptively reshaping gradient directions using an online curvature estimate for the attention module. Extensive experiments show that ARROW effectively improves plasticity and maintains better performance on newly encountered tasks.
Caihao Sun, Mingqi Yuan, Shiyuan Wang +1
University of Hong Kong · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Technische Universität Dresden +1
Transfer learning is a machine learning technique that uses previously acquired knowledge from a source domain to enhance learning in a target domain by reusing learned weights. This technique is ubiquitous because of its great advantages in achieving high performance while saving training time, memory, and effort in network design. In this paper, we investigate how to select the best pre-trained model that meets the target domain requirements for image classification tasks. In our study, we refined the output layers and general network parameters to apply the knowledge of eleven image processing models, pre-trained on ImageNet, to five different target domain datasets. We measured the accuracy, accuracy density, training time, and model size to evaluate the pre-trained models both in training sessions in one episode and with ten episodes.
Nermeen Abou Baker, Nico Zengeler, Uwe Handmann
Computer Science Institute, Ruhr West University of Applied Sciences, 46236 Bottrop, Germany
Adapting pre-trained models to specialized tasks often leads to catastrophic forgetting, where new knowledge overwrites foundational capabilities. Existing methods either compromise performance on the new task or struggle to balance training stability with efficient reuse of pre-trained knowledge. We introduce a novel function-preserving expansion method that resolves this dilemma. Our technique expands model capacity by replicating pre-trained parameters within transformer submodules and applying a scaling correction that guarantees the expanded model is mathematically identical to the original at initialization, enabling stable training while exploiting existing knowledge. Empirically, our method eliminates the trade-off between plasticity and stability, matching the performance of full fine-tuning on downstream tasks without any degradation of the model's original capabilities. Furthermore, we demonstrate the modularity of our approach, showing that by selectively expanding a small subset of layers we can achieve the same performance as full fine-tuning at a fraction of the computational cost.