Deep Mixtures of Factor Analysers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An efficient way to learn deep density models that have many layers of latent variables is to learn one layer at a time using a model that has only one layer of latent variables. After learning each layer, samples from the posterior distributions for that layer are used as training data for learning the next layer. This approach is commonly used with Restricted Boltzmann Machines, which are undirected graphical models with a single hidden layer, but it can also be used with Mixtures of Factor Analysers (MFAs) which are directed graphical models. In this paper, we present a greedy layer-wise learning algorithm for Deep Mixtures of Factor Analysers (DMFAs). Even though a DMFA can be converted to an equivalent shallow MFA by multiplying together the factor loading matrices at different levels, learning and inference are much more efficient in a DMFA and the sharing of each lower-level factor loading matrix by many different higher level MFAs prevents overfitting. We demonstrate empirically that DMFAs learn better density models than both MFAs and two types of Restricted Boltzmann Machine on a wide variety of datasets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".