MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1532251666

On autoencoder scoring

2013· article· en· W1532251666 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoencoderComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceProbabilistic logicMachine learningRestricted Boltzmann machineInferenceClassifier (UML)Gradient descentPattern recognition (psychology)Deep learningArtificial neural network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autoencoders are popular feature learning models because they are conceptually simple, easy to train and allow for efficient inference and training. Recent work has shown how certain autoencoders can assign an unnormalized “score ” to data which measures how well the autoencoder can represent the data. Scores are commonly computed by using training criteria that relate the autoencoder to a probabilistic model, such as the Restricted Boltzmann Machine. In this paper we show how an autoencoder can assign meaningful scores to data independently of training procedure and without reference to any probabilistic model, by interpreting it as a dynamical system. We discuss how, and under which conditions, running the dynamical system can be viewed as performing gradient descent in an energy function, which in turn allows us to derive a score via integration. We also show how one can combine multiple, unnormalized scores into a generative classifier. 1.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it