An empirical analysis of different sparse penalties for autoencoder in unsupervised feature learning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning algorithms depend heavily on the data representation, which dominates its success in experiment accuracy. Autoencoder model structure is proposed to learn from data a good representation with the least possible amount of distortion. Furthermore, it has been proven that boosting sparsity when learning representation can significantly improve performance on classification tasks and also make the feature vector easy to interpret. One straightforward approach for autoencoder to obtain sparse representation is to impose sparse penalty on its overall cost function. Nevertheless, few comparative analysis has been conducted to evaluate which sparse penalty term works better. In this paper, we adopt L1 norm, L2 norm, Student-t penalties, which are rarely deployed to penalise the hidden unit outputs, and commonly used penalty KL-divergence in the literature. Then, we present a detailed analysis to evaluate which penalty achieves better result in terms of reconstruction error, sparseness of representation and classification performance on test datasets. Experimental study on MNIST, CIFAR-10, SVHN, OPTDIGITS and NORB datasets reveals that all these penalties achieve sparse representation and outperforms representations learned by pure autoencoder on classification performance and sparseness of feature vectors. Moreover, we hope this topics and the practices would provide insights for future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it