MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099759795 · doi:10.1109/tnn.2005.851786

Constructive Feedforward Neural Networks Using Hermite Polynomial Activation Functions

2005· article· en· W2099759795 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivation functionConstructiveSigmoid functionHermite polynomialsArtificial neural networkComputer scienceFeedforward neural networkOrthonormal basisPolynomialAdaptation (eye)Function (biology)Constructive proofTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsCombinatoricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a constructive one-hidden-layer network is introduced where each hidden unit employs a polynomial function for its activation function that is different from other units. Specifically, both a structure level as well as a function level adaptation methodologies are utilized in constructing the network. The functional level adaptation scheme ensures that the "growing" or constructive network has different activation functions for each neuron such that the network may be able to capture the underlying input-output map more effectively. The activation functions considered consist of orthonormal Hermite polynomials. It is shown through extensive simulations that the proposed network yields improved performance when compared to networks having identical sigmoidal activation functions.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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