Evaluation of Parameter Update Effects in Deep Semi-Supervised Learning Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semi-Supervised Machine Learning (SSML) algorithms are combinations of unsupervised and supervised learning algorithms. This combination enables SSML algorithms to learn from both labelled and unlabelled data. One of the challenges is identifying the key contributing factors from both kinds of algorithms to the learning performance, in terms of training time, training loss, and accuracy. Previously, researchers have adopted Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) to construct the core learning models of SSML algorithms with improved accuracy. However, there is still a lacks of a systematic study to understand the key contributing factors and their effects. In this paper, we generalize the common components of SSML algorithms from state-of-the-art models (- Model, Temporal Ensembling and Mean-Teacher). We form a conceptual Semi-Supervised Computation Graph (SSCG) to inject different kinds of DNNs to the network classifier component in the computation graph. Such a combination illustrates two major aspects to investigate the effects: (1) parameter updates during the training across labelled and unlabelled data; (2) the ratio of labelled and unlabelled data. We performed 27 experiments with 3 SSML algorithms, 3 DNNs and 3 different ratios of labelled and unlabelled data. Our experimental results demonstrate that parameter updates are a dominating factor to the training loss and the learning precision. The experiments show that training loss is lowered by 6% and precision is increased by 4.21% using shake-shake26 as the network classifier in the SSML algorithm of Mean-Teacher, compared to all other combinations. We also observed a positive correlation with an R score value of 0.69 and the p-value of 0.03887 between the training time and the ratio of labelled to unlabelled data. Introducing more labelled data leads to longer training time, which triggers more parameter updates in back-and forward-propagations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".