A Quotient Homology Theory of Representation in Neural Networks
Kosio Beshkov

TL;DR
This paper introduces a quotient homology framework for neural network representations, enabling intrinsic topological analysis of learned features without external metrics, and demonstrates its effectiveness on toy datasets and during training.
Contribution
It develops a novel quotient homology theory for neural representations, allowing intrinsic topological analysis and efficient computation of Betti numbers.
Findings
Homology groups of neural representations are isomorphic to quotient homology groups.
Overlap homology captures purely topological features, unlike persistent homology.
The method tracks topological changes during training and network modifications.
Abstract
Previous research has proven that the set of maps implemented by neural networks with a ReLU activation function is identical to the set of piecewise linear continuous maps. Furthermore, such networks induce a hyperplane arrangement splitting the input domain of the network into convex polyhedra over which a network operates in an affine manner. In this work, we leverage these properties to define an equivalence class on top of an input dataset, which can be split into two sets related to the local rank of and the intersections . We refer to the latter as the \textit{overlap decomposition} and prove that if the intersections between each polyhedron and an input manifold are convex, the homology groups of neural representations are isomorphic to quotient homology groups $H_k(\Phi(\mathcal{M})) \simeq…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
The paper is original in proposing quotient homology as a new framework for analyzing neural representations and supports this with rigorous definitions and theorems that connect non-injectivity to topological change. It offers clear conceptual distinctions between geometric and topological effects, reinforced by insightful visualizations that make these differences intuitive. Overall, the approach has strong potential to influence future work on expressivity and manifold transformations in deep
1. The paper’s main theorem depends on the assumption that each intersection $M\cap G_{j}$ is convex, but this condition is unlikely to hold for realistic, high-dimensional, and non-convex input domains. The authors provide only low-dimensional toy examples to justify the assumption, leaving unclear how broadly the theoretical result applies in practice. 2. The theory identifies two distinct mechanisms of topological change—rank decomposition and overlap decomposition—but the experiments only an
- A good attempt was made to make some quite intricate and theoretical concepts accessible.
- At times the language is rather awkward, e.g., line 276: "One might object that this convexity condition does not usually obtain." and further on in the same paragraph. Also, the tone and presentation varies from quite formal to almost conversational, which is quite distracting. I would consider the writing to be a major and quite serious weakness. - Possibly an artifact of the awkward writing, but aside from mathematical interest, the intuition for studying such mathematical quantities and
- Creative proposal, moving beyond persistent homology. - Empirical results accompanying the theoretical ones. Examples where persistence may report loops due to geometry, while the quotient view does not. - Interestingly, uses piecewise-linear / polyhedral view of ReLU nets to define overlaps. - Training dynamics findings: Suggests slower topological collapse across layers than earlier results, this could be relevant in practice. - Generally well-written.
- Strong assumptions: Convexity is a strong assumption, will it work for natural data? - Scalability: I also formulated it as a question below, because I'm not certain, but the method does not seem to be particularly scalable (LP method, pairwise). - Only toy data. It wouldn't particularly worry me if not for the strong assumptions. - 5.2 TOPOLOGICAL VERSUS GEOMETRIC TRANSFORMATIONS" is very interesting. Still, I'm not convinced why in practice reason geometric contamination would be an issue
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsTopological and Geometric Data Analysis · Neural Networks and Applications
Methods*Communicated@Fast*How Do I Communicate to Expedia? · Sparse Evolutionary Training
