Adversarial Dropout for Recurrent Neural Networks
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
Successful application processing sequential data, such as text and speech, requires an improved generalization performance of recurrent neural networks (RNNs). Dropout techniques for RNNs were introduced to respond to these demands, but we conjecture that the dropout on RNNs could have been improved by adopting the adversarial concept. This paper investigates ways to improve the dropout for RNNs by utilizing intentionally generated dropout masks. Specifically, the guided dropout used in this research is called as adversarial dropout, which adversarially disconnects neurons that are dominantly used to predict correct targets over time. Our analysis showed that our regularizer, which consists of a gap between the original and the reconfigured RNNs, was the upper bound of the gap between the training and the inference phases of the random dropout. We demonstrated that minimizing our regularizer improved the effectiveness of the dropout for RNNs on sequential MNIST tasks, semi-supervised text classification tasks, and language modeling tasks.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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