On the quantitative analysis of deep belief networks
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
Deep Belief Networks (DBN's) are generative models that contain many layers of hidden variables. Efficient greedy algorithms for learning and approximate inference have allowed these models to be applied successfully in many application domains. The main building block of a DBN is a bipartite undirected graphical model called a restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM). Due to the presence of the partition function, model selection, complexity control, and exact maximum likelihood learning in RBM's are intractable. We show that Annealed Importance Sampling (AIS) can be used to efficiently estimate the partition function of an RBM, and we present a novel AIS scheme for comparing RBM's with different architectures. We further show how an AIS estimator, along with approximate inference, can be used to estimate a lower bound on the log-probability that a DBN model with multiple hidden layers assigns to the test data. This is, to our knowledge, the first step towards obtaining quantitative results that would allow us to directly assess the performance of Deep Belief Networks as generative models of data.
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 | 0.001 | 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