MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Learning Deep Generative Models

2015· article· en· W2164700406 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

VenueAnnual Review of Statistics and Its Application · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchSamsungCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsDeep belief networkBoltzmann machineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceDeep learningGenerative grammarFeature (linguistics)Generative modelObject (grammar)Machine learningPerceptionRestricted Boltzmann machineCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building intelligent systems that are capable of extracting high-level representations from high-dimensional sensory data lies at the core of solving many artificial intelligence–related tasks, including object recognition, speech perception, and language understanding. Theoretical and biological arguments strongly suggest that building such systems requires models with deep architectures that involve many layers of nonlinear processing. In this article, we review several popular deep learning models, including deep belief networks and deep Boltzmann machines. We show that (a) these deep generative models, which contain many layers of latent variables and millions of parameters, can be learned efficiently, and (b) the learned high-level feature representations can be successfully applied in many application domains, including visual object recognition, information retrieval, classification, and regression tasks.

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 score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.269 · 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