On Nonparametric Guidance for Learning Autoencoder Representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unsupervised discovery of latent representations, in addition to being useful for density modeling, visualisation and exploratory data analysis, is also increasingly important for learning features relevant to discriminative tasks. Autoencoders, in particular, have proven to be an effective way to learn latent codes that reflect meaningful variations in data. A continuing challenge, however, is guiding an autoencoder toward representations that are useful for particular tasks. A complementary challenge is to find codes that are invariant to irrelevant transformations of the data. The most common way of introducing such problem-specific guidance in autoencoders has been through the incorporation of a parametric component that ties the latent representation to the label information. In this work, we argue that a preferable approach relies instead on a nonparametric guidance mechanism. Conceptually, it ensures that there exists a function that can predict the label information, without explicitly instantiating that function. The superiority of this guidance mechanism is confirmed on two datasets. In particular, this approach is able to incorporate invariance information (lighting, elevation, etc.) from the small NORB object recognition dataset and yields state-of-the-art performance for a single layer, non-convolutional network.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".