A DEEP CONVOLUTIONAL AUTO-ENCODER WITH POOLING – UNPOOLING LAYERS IN CAFFE
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
This paper presents the development of several models of a deep convolutional auto-encoder in the Caffe deep learning framework and their experimental evaluation on the example of MNIST dataset. We have created five models of a convolutional auto-encoder which differ architecturally by the presence or absence of pooling and unpooling layers in the auto-encoder’s encoder and decoder parts. Our results show that the developed models provide very good results in dimensionality reduction and unsupervised clustering tasks, and small classification errors when we used the learned internal code as an input of a supervised linear classifier and multi-layer perceptron. The best results were provided by a model where the encoder part contains convolutional and pooling layers, followed by an analogous decoder part with deconvolution and unpooling layers without the use of switch variables in the decoder part. The paper also discusses practical details of the creation of a deep convolutional auto-encoder in the very popular Caffe deep learning framework. We believe that our approach and results presented in this paper could help other researchers to build efficient deep neural network architectures in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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