Learning to Represent Spatial Transformations with Factored Higher-Order Boltzmann Machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To allow the hidden units of a restricted Boltzmann machine to model the transformation between two successive images, Memisevic and Hinton (2007) introduced three-way multiplicative interactions that use the intensity of a pixel in the first image as a multiplicative gain on a learned, symmetric weight between a pixel in the second image and a hidden unit. This creates cubically many parameters, which form a three-dimensional interaction tensor. We describe a low-rank approximation to this interaction tensor that uses a sum of factors, each of which is a three-way outer product. This approximation allows efficient learning of transformations between larger image patches. Since each factor can be viewed as an image filter, the model as a whole learns optimal filter pairs for efficiently representing transformations. We demonstrate the learning of optimal filter pairs from various synthetic and real image sequences. We also show how learning about image transformations allows the model to perform a simple visual analogy task, and we show how a completely unsupervised network trained on transformations perceives multiple motions of transparent dot patterns in the same way as humans.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".