MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117499988

The Difficulty of Training Deep Architectures and the Effect of Unsupervised Pre-Training

2009· article· en· W2117499988 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

VenueInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceInitializationRobustness (evolution)Deep learningTraining (meteorology)Machine learningDeep neural networksUnsupervised learningTraining set
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whereas theoretical work suggests that deep architectures might be more e cient at representing highly-varying functions, training deep architectures was unsuccessful until the recent advent of algorithms based on unsupervised pretraining. Even though these new algorithms have enabled training deep models, many questions remain as to the nature of this di cult learning problem. Answering these questions is important if learning in deep architectures is to be further improved. We attempt to shed some light on these questions through extensive simulations. The experiments confirm and clarify the advantage of unsupervised pre-training. They demonstrate the robustness of the training procedure with respect to the random initialization, the positive e ect of pre-training in terms of optimization and its role as a regularizer. We empirically show the influence of pre-training with respect to architecture depth, model capacity, and number of training examples.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.256 · 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