Using Function Approximation to Determine Neural Network Accuracy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many, if not most, control processes demonstrate non-linear behavior in some portion of their operating range and the ability of neural networks to model non-linear dynamics makes them very appealing for control. Control of high reliability safety systems, and autonomous control in process or robotic applications, however, require accurate and consistent control and neural networks are only approximators of various functions so their degree of approximation becomes important. In this paper, the factors affecting the ability of a feed-forward back-propagation neural network to accurately approximate a non-linear function are explored. Compared to pattern recognition using a neural network for function approximation provides an easy and accurate method for determining the network's accuracy. In contrast to other techniques, we show that errors arising in function approximation or curve fitting are caused by the neural network itself rather than scatter in the data. A method is proposed that provides improvements in the accuracy achieved during training and resulting ability of the network to generalize after training. Binary input vectors provided a more accurate model than with scalar inputs and retraining using a small number of the outlier x,y pairs improved generalization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it