MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963559171

Learning Convolutional Neural Networks using Hybrid Orthogonal Projection and Estimation

2016· article· en· W2963559171 on OpenAlexaff
Hengyue Pan, Hui Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Conference on Machine Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkOrthogonalityComputer sciencePoolingPattern recognition (psychology)Block (permutation group theory)Artificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Convolution (computer science)Projection (relational algebra)Dimension (graph theory)Feature extractionKernel (algebra)AlgorithmArtificial neural networkMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have yielded the excellent performance in a variety of computer vision tasks, where CNNs typically adopt a similar structure consisting of convolution layers, pooling layers and fully connected layers. In this paper, we propose to apply a novel method, namely Hybrid Orthogonal Projection and Estimation (HOPE), to CNNs in order to introduce orthogonality into the CNN structure. The HOPE model can be viewed as a hybrid model to combine feature extraction using orthogonal linear projection with mixture models. It is an effective model to extract useful information from the original high-dimension feature vectors and meanwhile filter out irrelevant noises. In this work, we present three different ways to apply the HOPE models to CNNs, i.e., {\em HOPE-Input}, {\em single-HOPE-Block} and {\em multi-HOPE-Blocks}. For {\em HOPE-Input} CNNs, a HOPE layer is directly used right after the input to de-correlate high-dimension input feature vectors. Alternatively, in {\em single-HOPE-Block} and {\em multi-HOPE-Blocks} CNNs, we consider to use HOPE layers to replace one or more blocks in the CNNs, where one block may include several convolutional layers and one pooling layer. The experimental results on both Cifar-10 and Cifar-100 data sets have shown that the orthogonal constraints imposed by the HOPE layers can significantly improve the performance of CNNs in these image classification tasks (we have achieved one of the best performance when image augmentation has not been applied, and top 5 performance with image augmentation).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Conference on Machine LearningSame topicImage Processing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207