Exploiting Explainable Metrics for Augmented SGD
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Explaining the generalization characteristics of deep learning is an emerging topic in advanced machine learning. There are several unanswered questions about how learning under stochastic optimization really works and why certain strategies are better than others. In this paper, we address the following question: can we probe intermediate layers of a deep neural network to identify and quantify the learning quality of each layer? With this question in mind, we propose new explainability metrics that measure the redundant information in a network's layers using a low-rank factorization framework and quantify a complexity measure that is highly correlated with the generalization performance of a given optimizer, network, and dataset. We subsequently exploit these metrics to augment the Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) optimizer by adaptively adjusting the learning rate in each layer to improve in generalization performance. Our augmented SGD - dubbed RMSGD - introduces minimal computational overhead compared to SOTA methods and outperforms them by exhibiting strong generalization characteristics across application, architecture, and dataset.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it