Learned-Norm Pooling for Deep Feedforward and Recurrent Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we propose and investigate a novel nonlinear unit, called $L_p$ unit, for deep neural networks. The proposed $L_p$ unit receives signals from several projections of a subset of units in the layer below and computes a normalized $L_p$ norm. We notice two interesting interpretations of the $L_p$ unit. First, the proposed unit can be understood as a generalization of a number of conventional pooling operators such as average, root-mean-square and max pooling widely used in, for instance, convolutional neural networks (CNN), HMAX models and neocognitrons. Furthermore, the $L_p$ unit is, to a certain degree, similar to the recently proposed maxout unit (Goodfellow et al., 2013) which achieved the state-of-the-art object recognition results on a number of benchmark datasets. Secondly, we provide a geometrical interpretation of the activation function based on which we argue that the $L_p$ unit is more efficient at representing complex, nonlinear separating boundaries. Each $L_p$ unit defines a superelliptic boundary, with its exact shape defined by the order $p$. We claim that this makes it possible to model arbitrarily shaped, curved boundaries more efficiently by combining a few $L_p$ units of different orders. This insight justifies the need for learning different orders for each unit in the model. We empirically evaluate the proposed $L_p$ units on a number of datasets and show that multilayer perceptrons (MLP) consisting of the $L_p$ units achieve the state-of-the-art results on a number of benchmark datasets. Furthermore, we evaluate the proposed $L_p$ unit on the recently proposed deep recurrent neural networks (RNN).
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".