MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267787486 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1509.06061

A Statistical Theory of Deep Learning via Proximal Splitting

2015· preprint· en· W2267787486 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas G. Polson, Brandon T. Willard, Massoud Heidari

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsBooth University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatistical learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyStatistical physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we develop a statistical theory and an implementation of deep learning models. We show that an elegant variable splitting scheme for the alternating direction method of multipliers optimises a deep learning objective. We allow for non-smooth non-convex regularisation penalties to induce sparsity in parameter weights. We provide a link between traditional shallow layer statistical models such as principal component and sliced inverse regression and deep layer models. We also define the degrees of freedom of a deep learning predictor and a predictive MSE criteria to perform model selection for comparing architecture designs. We focus on deep multiclass logistic learning although our methods apply more generally. Our results suggest an interesting and previously under-exploited relationship between deep learning and proximal splitting techniques. To illustrate our methodology, we provide a multi-class logit classification analysis of Fisher's Iris data where we illustrate the convergence of our algorithm. Finally, we conclude with directions for future research.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207