MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740247811 · doi:10.1109/cwit.2017.7994828

Optimality of inference in hierarchical coding for distributed object-based representations

2017· article· en· W2740247811 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Brodeur, Jean Rouat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
KeywordsComputer scienceInferenceENCODETheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hierarchical approaches for representation learning have the ability to encode relevant features at multiple scales or levels of abstraction. However, most hierarchical approaches exploit only the last level in the hierarchy, or provide a multiscale representation that holds a significant amount of redundancy. We argue that removing redundancy across the multiple levels of abstraction is important for an efficient representation of compositionality in object-based representations. With the perspective of feature learning as a data compression operation, we propose a new greedy inference algorithm for hierarchical sparse coding. Convolutional matching pursuit with a L <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">0</sup> -norm constraint was used to encode the input signal into compact and non-redundant codes distributed across levels of the hierarchy. Simple and complex synthetic datasets of temporal signals were created to evaluate the encoding efficiency and compare with the theoretical lower bounds on the information rate for those signals. Empirical evidence have shown that the algorithm is able to infer near-optimal codes for simple signals. However, it failed for complex signals with strong overlapping between objects. We explain the inefficiency of convolutional matching pursuit that occurred in such case. This brings new insights about the NP-hard optimization problem related to using L <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">0</sup> -norm constraint in inferring optimally compact and distributed object-based representations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207