Feedback Gradient Descent: Efficient and Stable Optimization with Orthogonality for DNNs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimization with orthogonality has been shown useful in training deep neural networks (DNNs). To impose orthogonality on DNNs, both computational efficiency and stability are important. However, existing methods utilizing Riemannian optimization or hard constraints can only ensure stability while those using soft constraints can only improve efficiency. In this paper, we propose a novel method, named Feedback Gradient Descent (FGD), to our knowledge, the first work showing high efficiency and stability simultaneously. FGD induces orthogonality based on the simple yet indispensable Euler discretization of a continuous-time dynamical system on the tangent bundle of the Stiefel manifold. In particular, inspired by a numerical integration method on manifolds called Feedback Integrators, we propose to instantiate it on the tangent bundle of the Stiefel manifold for the first time. In our extensive image classification experiments, FGD comprehensively outperforms the existing state-of-the-art methods in terms of accuracy, efficiency, and stability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".