Why Layer-Wise Learning is Hard to Scale-up and a Possible Solution via Accelerated Downsampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Layer-wise learning, as an alternative to global backpropagation, is memory efficient and easy to interpret, analyze. Recent studies demonstrate that layer-wise learning can achieve state-of-the-art performance in image classification on various datasets. However, previous studies on layer-wise learning are limited to networks with simple hierarchical structures, and the performance decreases severely for deeper networks like ResNet. This paper, for the first time, reveals the fundamental reason that impedes the scale-up of layer-wise learning is the relatively poor separability of the feature space in shallow layers. This argument is empirically verified by controlling the intensity of the convolution operation in local layers. We discover that the poorly-separable features from shallow layers are mismatched with the strong supervision constraint throughout the entire network, making the layer-wise learning sensitive to network depth. The paper further proposes a downsampling acceleration approach to weaken the poor learning of shallow layers so as to transfer the learning emphasis to deep feature space where the separability matches better with the supervision restraint. Extensive experiments have been conducted to verify the finding and demonstrate the advantages of the proposed downsampling acceleration in improving the performance of layer-wise learning.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".