MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124751123 · doi:10.1186/2042-1001-1-12

Machine learning for neuroscience

2011· article· en· W2124751123 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey E. Hinton

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Systems & Circuits · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraphical modelComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningInferenceKey (lock)Variable (mathematics)Probabilistic logicHidden variable theoryComputational learning theoryGraphLatent variableComputationUnsupervised learningTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is machine learning? Machine learning is a type of statistics that places particular emphasis on the use of advanced computational algorithms. As computers become more powerful, and modern experimental methods in areas such as imaging generate vast bodies of data, machine learning is becoming ever more important for extracting reliable and meaningful relationships and for making accurate predictions. Key strands of modern machine learning grew out of attempts to understand how large numbers of interconnected, more or less neuron-like elements could learn to achieve behaviourally meaningful computations and to extract useful features from images or sound waves. By the 1990s, key approaches had converged on an elegant framework called ‘graphical models’, explained in Koller and Friedman, in which the nodes of a graph represent variables such as edges and corners in an image, or phonemes and words in speech. The probabilistic relationships between nodes are represented by conditional probability tables or simple functions whose parameters are learned from the data. There are three main problems in fitting graphical models to data: inference, parameter learning and structure learning. The inference problem is how to infer the probable values of unobserved variables when the values of a subset of the variables have been observed, and is a problem that perceptual systems need to solve if they are to infer the hidden causes of their sensory input. The parameter-learning problem is how to adjust the parameters governing the way in which one variable influences another, so that the graphical model is a better fit to some observed data. In the brain, this is presumably done by changing synapse strengths. The structure-learning problem is how to decide which unobserved variables are needed and how they must be connected to model the correlations between observed variables. In the brain, evolution and early pruning of connections presumably have a large role to play in determining the structure. Could you provide a brief description of the methods of machine learning? Machine learning can be divided into three parts: 1) in supervised learning, the aim is to predict a class label or a real value from an input (classifying objects in images or predicting the future value of a stock are examples of this type of learning); 2) in unsupervised learning, the aim is to discover good features for representing the input data; and 3) in reinforcement learning, the aim is to discover what action should be performed next in order to maximize the eventual payoff.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural Systems & CircuitsSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207