MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285242070 · doi:10.23952/jano.4.2022.2.05

Point-to-set distance functions for output-constrained neural networks

2022· article· en· W4285242070 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bas Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied and Numerical Optimization · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Artificial neural networkPoint (geometry)Set pointComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceGeometryEngineeringControl engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Training a neural network for semantic segmentation with many images and pixel-level segmentations is a well-established computer-vision technique. When pixel-level segmentations are unavailable, weak supervision or prior information like bounding boxes and the size/shape of objects still enables training a network. Directly including prior knowledge on the segmentations means constraining the network output. This complicates the possible optimization strategies because the regularization then acts on the non-linear neural-network function output and not on the optimization variables. We present a new algorithm to include prior information via constraints on the network output, implemented via projection-based point-to-set distance functions, that are differentiable and always have the same functional form for the derivative. Thus, there is no need to adapt penalty functions or algorithms to various constraints. The distance function's differentiability also avoids issues related to constraining properties typically associated with non-differentiable penalties. We show that by explicitly taking a general neural network structure into account, the Lagrangian for the problem 'naturally' decouples the constraints and neural network, which allows for a gradient computation via backpropagation/adjoint-state as is common in deep learning. We present a suite of constraint sets suitable for segmentation problems. The numerical experiments show that learning from constraint sets applies to the broader imaging sciences, including visual and non-visual imagery, even when training a network for a single example.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied and Numerical OptimizationSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207