Bibliographic record
Abstract
One long-term goal of machine learning research is to produce methods that are applicable to highly complex tasks, such as perception (vision, audition), rea-soning, intelligent control, and other artificially intelligent behaviors. We argue that in order to progress toward this goal, the Machine Learning community must endeavor to discover algorithms that can learn highly complex functions, with min-imal need for prior knowledge, and with minimal human intervention. We present mathematical and empirical evidence suggesting that many popular approaches to non-parametric learning, particularly kernel methods, are fundamentally lim-ited in their ability to learn complex high-dimensional functions. Our analysis focuses on two problems. First, kernel machines are shallow architectures, in which one large layer of simple template matchers is followed by a single layer of trainable coefficients. We argue that shallow architectures can be very ineffi-cient in terms of required number of computational elements and examples. Sec-ond, we analyze a limitation of kernel machines with a local kernel, linked to the curse of dimensionality, that applies to supervised, unsupervised (manifold learn-ing) and semi-supervised kernel machines. Using empirical results on invariant image recognition tasks, kernel methods are compared with deep architectures, in which lower-level features or concepts are progressively combined into more ab-stract and higher-level representations. We argue that deep architectures have the potential to generalize in non-local ways, i.e., beyond immediate neighbors, and that this is crucial in order to make progress on the kind of complex tasks required for artificial intelligence. 1 1
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".