MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107215445 · doi:10.1109/ita.2010.5454138

A tutorial on stochastic approximation algorithms for training Restricted Boltzmann Machines and Deep Belief Nets

2010· article· en· W2107215445 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsBoltzmann machineMNIST databaseRestricted Boltzmann machineDeep belief networkComputer scienceBoltzmann constantArtificial intelligenceDivergence (linguistics)Classifier (UML)AlgorithmBelief propagationTraining setMachine learningArtificial neural networkMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we provide a direct comparison of the Stochastic Maximum Likelihood algorithm and Contrastive Divergence for training Restricted Boltzmann Machines using the MNIST data set. We demonstrate that Stochastic Maximum Likelihood is superior when using the Restricted Boltzmann Machine as a classifier, and that the algorithm can be greatly improved using the technique of iterate averaging from the field of stochastic approximation. We further show that training with optimal parameters for classification does not necessarily lead to optimal results when Restricted Boltzmann Machines are stacked to form a Deep Belief Network. In our experiments we observe that fine tuning a Deep Belief Network significantly changes the distribution of the latent data, even though the parameter changes are negligible.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.232 · 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