MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980583983 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.06548

Training CNNs faster with Dynamic Input and Kernel Downsampling

2019· preprint· en· W2980583983 on OpenAlexaff
Zissis Poulos, Ali Nouri, Andreas Moshovos

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpsamplingComputer scienceHyperparameterPoolingResidualConvolution (computer science)Kernel (algebra)Reduction (mathematics)AlgorithmBackpropagationFilter (signal processing)GeneralizationFeature (linguistics)Key (lock)Convolutional neural networkArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsArtificial neural networkComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reduce training time in convolutional networks (CNNs) with a method that, for some of the mini-batches: a) scales down the resolution of input images via downsampling, and b) reduces the forward pass operations via pooling on the convolution filters. Training is performed in an interleaved fashion; some batches undergo the regular forward and backpropagation passes with original network parameters, whereas others undergo a forward pass with pooled filters and downsampled inputs. Since pooling is differentiable, the gradients of the pooled filters propagate to the original network parameters for a standard parameter update. The latter phase requires fewer floating point operations and less storage due to the reduced spatial dimensions in feature maps and filters. The key idea is that this phase leads to smaller and approximate updates and thus slower learning, but at significantly reduced cost, followed by passes that use the original network parameters as a refinement stage. Deciding how often and for which batches the downsmapling occurs can be done either stochastically or deterministically, and can be defined as a training hyperparameter itself. Experiments on residual architectures show that we can achieve up to 23% reduction in training time with minimal loss in validation accuracy.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.131 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207