MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187650160

Discussion of \The Neural Autoregressive Distribution Estimator"

2011· article· en· W2187650160 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 · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMNIST databaseBoltzmann machineLatent variableEstimatorRestricted Boltzmann machineGraphical modelComputer scienceInferenceBlock (permutation group theory)Gibbs samplingArtificial intelligenceAutoregressive modelAlgorithmMathematicsApplied mathematicsMachine learningArtificial neural networkStatisticsCombinatorics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Restricted Boltzmann Machine (Smolensky, 1986; Hinton et al., 2006) has inspired much research in recent years, in particular as a building block for deep architectures (see Bengio (2009) for a review). The Restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM) is an undirected graphical model with latent variables, exact inference, rather simple sampling procedures (block Gibbs), and several successful learning algorithms based on approximations of the log-likelihood gradient. However, when it comes to actually computing the distribution or density function, it is intractable, except when either the number of inputs or latent variables is very small (about 25 binary hidden units with current computers and about an hour of computing, on MNIST).

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.200 · 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