Position Paper: Representation Search through Generate and Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning representations from data is one of the fundamental problems of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Many different approaches exist for learning representations, but what constitutes a good representation is not yet well understood. In this work, we view the problem of representation learning as one of learning features (e.g., hidden units of neural networks) such that performance of the underlying base system continually improves. We study an important case where learning is done fully online (i.e., on an example-by-example basis) from an unending stream of data, and the computational cost of the learning element should not grow with time or cannot be much more than that of the performance element. Few methods can be used effectively in this case. We show that a search approach to representation learning can naturally fit with this setting. In this approach good representations are searched by generating different features and then testing them for utility. We develop new representation-search methods and show that the generate-and-test approach can be utilized in a simple and effective way for continually improving representations. Our methods are fully online and add only a small fraction to the overall computation. We believe online representation search constitutes an important step toward effective and inexpensive solutions to representation learning problems.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".