Topographic representation adds robustness to supervised learning
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
In recent years, machine learning especially deep models have made significant improvements over their performances and thus applicable to many problems that until a decade ago were prohibitively difficult to learn. One of the strengths of the deep models is that they adaptively capture well-structured representations of the input in their internal representations that help them to generate desirable outputs. However, while many studies are dedicated for improving the performances of neural networks, less efforts are focused for understanding the formation of the internal representations in hierarchical neural networks and the implications to their performances. Here, we study a network model that incorporates topographical self-organizing maps into a supervised network and show how gradient learning results in a form of a self-organizing learning rule. Topographical self-organizing principles as internal representation is interesting because while topographical self-organizing principles have motivated much of early learning models and relevant to biological learning systems, such principles have rarely been included in supervised learning architectures. In this paper our objectives are explaining the dynamics of the proposed model, visually comparing the internal representation of the proposed model against some deep models and importantly showing that our model is robust in the sense of its application to a variety of areas, which is believed to be a hallmark of biological learning systems.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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