MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Survey of Ensemble Methods for Mitigating Memristive Neural Network Non-idealities

2023· preprint· en· W4319078291 on OpenAlex
Muhammad Ahsan Kaleem, Jack Cai, Amirali Amirsoleimani, Roman Genov

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMNIST databaseWeightingArtificial neural networkComputer scienceVotingEnsemble learningEnsemble forecastingWork (physics)Ensemble averageArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAlgorithmData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, ensemble methods are presented and tested as universal ways to improve the performance of Mem-ristive Deep Neural Networks (MDNNs) with non-idealities. The Generalized Ensemble Method and Weighted Voting ensemble methods improve the accuracy of classification on the MNIST dataset by 6.5% and 6.6% respectively, thus showing that they are more effective than basic Ensemble Averaging which has been investigated before, as well as other methods such as Voting. Different weighting schemes for Weighted Voting were tested, and we present Algorithm 1 and 2, which are the theoretically and experimentally optimal weighting schemes respectively. Our work serves as a guideline for choosing ensemble methods for MDNNs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Memory and Neural ComputingFrench-language works237,207