MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761175401 · doi:10.1109/cibcb.2017.8058548

An algebraic generalization for graph and tensor-based neural networks

2017· article· en· W2761175401 on OpenAlexaff
Ethan Jackson, James Alexander Hughes, Mark Daley, Michael Winter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceArtificial neural networkGraphLinear algebraAlgebra over a fieldArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite significant effort, there is currently no formal or de facto standard framework or format for constructing, representing, or manipulating general neural networks. In computational neuroscience, there have been some attempts to formalize connectionist notations and generative operations for neural networks, including Connection Set Algebra, but none are truly formal or general. In computational intelligence (CI), though the use of linear algebra and tensor-based models are widespread, graph-based frameworks are also popular and there is a lack of tools supporting the transfer of information between systems. To address these gaps, we exploited existing results about the connection between linear and relation algebras to define a concise, formal algebraic framework that generalizes graph and tensor-based neural networks. For simplicity and compatibility, this framework is purposefully defined as a minimal extension to linear algebra. We demonstrate the merits of this approach first by defining new operations for network composition along with proofs of their most important properties. An implementation of the algebraic framework is presented and applied to create an instance of an artificial neural network that is compatible with both graph and tensor based CI frameworks. The result is an algebraic framework for neural networks that generalizes the formats used in at least two systems, together with an example implementation.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207