Meta-free few-shot learning via representation learning with weight averaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies on few-shot classification using transfer learning pose challenges to the effectiveness and efficiency of episodic meta-learning algorithms. Transfer learning approaches are a natural alternative, but they are restricted to few-shot classification. Moreover, little attention has been on the development of probabilistic models with well-calibrated uncertainty from few-shot samples, except for some Bayesian episodic learning algorithms. To tackle the aforementioned issues, we propose a new transfer learning method to obtain accurate and reliable models for few-shot regression and classification. The resulting method does not require episodic meta-learning and is called meta-free representation learning (MFRL). MFRL first finds low-rank representation generalizing well on meta-test tasks. Given the learned representation, probabilistic linear models are fine-tuned with few-shot samples to obtain models with well-calibrated uncertainty. The proposed method not only achieves the highest accuracy on a wide range of few-shot learning benchmark datasets but also correctly quantifies the prediction uncertainty. In addition, weight averaging and temperature scaling are effective in improving the accuracy and reliability of few-shot learning in existing meta-learning algorithms with a wide range of learning paradigms and model architectures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".