Neural networks designing neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial neural networks have gone through a recent rise in popularity, achieving state-of-the-art results in various fields, including image classification, speech recognition, and automated control. Both the performance and computational complexity of such models are heavily dependant on the design of characteristic hyper-parameters (e.g., number of hidden layers, nodes per layer, or choice of activation functions), which have traditionally been optimized manually. With machine learning penetrating low-power mobile and embedded areas, the need to optimize not only for performance (accuracy), but also for implementation complexity, becomes paramount. In this work, we present a multi-objective design space exploration method that reduces the number of solution networks trained and evaluated through response surface modelling. Given spaces which can easily exceed 10<sup>20</sup> solutions, manually designing a near-optimal architecture is unlikely as opportunities to reduce network complexity, while maintaining performance, may be overlooked. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that hyper-parameters which perform well on specific datasets may yield sub-par results on others, and must therefore be designed on a per-application basis. In our work, machine learning is leveraged by training an artificial neural network to predict the performance of future candidate networks. The method is evaluated on the MNIST and CIFAR-10 image datasets, optimizing for both recognition accuracy and computational complexity. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method can closely approximate the Pareto-optimal front, while only exploring a small fraction of the design space.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".