EvoDNN - Evolving Weights, Biases, and Activation Functions in a Deep Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classification, such as classifying cell samples into cancer (malignant) or normal (benign), or the classification of genome regions into functional regions (for example coding regions or promoter regions) are important problems in Computational Biology. For such tasks, we have previously designed an evolutionary deep neural network that in addition to evolving the neuron's weights and biases also evolves (learns) the activation functions for each neuron and called this approach EvoDNN. EvoDNN can employ activation functions that are non-differentiable as it does not rely on back-propagation. This feature is adding flexibility in terms of activation functions EvoDNN can employ. The work presented here extends our previous work on EvoDNN by analyzing a more extensive set of data sets and studying variations of the internal topology of the EvoDNN model. In addition, we study the effect of evolving the weights and biases only while holding the activation function fixed and demonstrate that evolving activation functions indeed provides better performance. We also compare our model to several other popular models and demonstrate superior performance on several data sets. The current code for EvoDNN is available at https://github.com/Payuing/evoDNN.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".