Biasing restricted Boltzmann machines using Gaussian filters to learn invariant visual features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in unsupervised learning have allowed the efficient learning of feature representations directly from large sets of unlabeled data instead of using traditional handcrafted features. However, improving algorithms to increase the quality of these representations in the absence of labeled data is still an area of active research. This paper evaluates visual features learned through unsupervised learning, specifically comparing regularization and preprocessing methods using Gaussian filters on a single-layer network. Using the restricted Boltzmann machine as the unsupervised learning mechanism, features emerging through training on natural videos, with different biasing and preprocessing based on Gaussian filters, are compared by metrics to measure invariance as well as classification performance on standard datasets. When Gaussian filters are convolved with adjacent hidden layer activations from a single example during training, topographies begin to emerge where adjacent features become tuned to slightly varying stimuli. 1D, 2D, and 3D topographies are compared. When a Gaussian low-pass filter is applied to activations from a single hidden node across frames drawn from video, features that are more invariant to transformations are produced. Finally, when Gaussian filters are applied to the visible nodes, images become blurrier; learning from these images also leads to invariant features. The networks are trained using the Hollywood2 video dataset, and tested on image classification of the static CIFAR-10 and STL-10 datasets. To prove that the improvements are independent of the dataset, the networks are shown to produce similar results when trained on the CIFAR-10 dataset. The induction of topography or simple image blurring via Gaussian filters during training produce better discriminative features as evidenced by the consistent and notable increase in classification results that they produce. Also, in the visual domain, invariant features are desirable such that objects can be classified accurately despite transformations. It is found that most of the compared methods produce more invariant features, however, classification accuracy does not correlate to invariance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".