MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177899970 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10777

Denoising Criterion for Variational Auto-Encoding Framework

2017· article· en· W2177899970 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Im Jiwoong Im, Sungjin Ahn, Roland Memisevic, Yoshua Bengio

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoencoderMNIST databaseNoise reductionNoise (video)Upper and lower boundsPattern recognition (psychology)Encoding (memory)EncoderArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsDeep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Denoising autoencoders (DAE) are trained to reconstruct their clean inputs with noise injected at the input level, while variational autoencoders (VAE) are trained with noise injected in their stochastic hidden layer, with a regularizer that encourages this noise injection. In this paper, we show that injecting noise both in input and in the stochastic hidden layer can be advantageous and we propose a modified variational lower bound as an improved objective function in this setup. When input is corrupted, then the standard VAE lower bound involves marginalizing the encoder conditional distribution over the input noise, which makes the training criterion intractable. Instead, we propose a modified training criterion which corresponds to a tractable bound when input is corrupted. Experimentally, we find that the proposed denoising variational autoencoder (DVAE) yields better average log-likelihood than the VAE and the importance weighted autoencoder on the MNIST and Frey Face datasets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations142
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisFrench-language works237,207