Supervised autoencoders: Improving generalization performance with unsupervised regularizers
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
Generalization performance is a central goal in machine learning, particularly when learning representations with large neural networks. A common strategy to improve generalization has been through the use of regularizers, typically as a norm constraining the parameters. Regularizing hidden layers in a neural network architecture, however, is not straightforward. There have been a few effective layer-wise suggestions, but without theoretical guarantees for improved performance. In this work, we theoretically and empirically analyze one such model, called a supervised auto-encoder: a neural network that predicts both inputs (reconstruction error) and targets jointly. We provide a novel generalization result for linear auto-encoders, proving uniform stability based on the inclusion of the reconstruction error---particularly as an improvement on simplistic regularization such as norms or even on more advanced regularizations such as the use of auxiliary tasks. Empirically, we then demonstrate that, across an array of architectures with a different number of hidden units and activation functions, the supervised auto-encoder compared to the corresponding standard neural network never harms performance and can significantly improve generalization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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