MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2208525479 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v25i1.7935

Convex Sparse Coding, Subspace Learning, and Semi-Supervised Extensions

2011· article· en· W2208525479 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

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSubspace topologyA priori and a posterioriComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceGeneralizationMachine learningNeural codingSemi-supervised learningSupervised learningPattern recognition (psychology)Regular polygonMathematicsArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated feature discovery is a fundamental problem in machine learning. Although classical feature discovery methods do not guarantee optimal solutions in general, it has been recently noted that certain subspace learning and sparse coding problems can be solved efficiently, provided the number of features is not restricted a priori. We provide an extended characterization of this optimality result and describe the nature of the solutions under an expanded set of practical contexts. In particular, we apply the framework to a semi-supervised learning problem, and demonstrate that feature discovery can co-occur with input reconstruction and supervised training while still admitting globally optimal solutions. A comparison to existing semi-supervised feature discovery methods shows improved generalization and efficiency.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.176 · 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