PopulAtion Parameter Averaging (PAPA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensemble methods combine the predictions of multiple models to improve performance, but they require significantly higher computation costs at inference time. To avoid these costs, multiple neural networks can be combined into one by averaging their weights. However, this usually performs significantly worse than ensembling. Weight averaging is only beneficial when different enough to benefit from combining them, but similar enough to average well. Based on this idea, we propose PopulAtion Parameter Averaging (PAPA): a method that combines the generality of ensembling with the efficiency of weight averaging. PAPA leverages a population of diverse models (trained on different data orders, augmentations, and regularizations) while slowly pushing the weights of the networks toward the population average of the weights. We also propose PAPA variants (PAPA-all, and PAPA-2) that average weights rarely rather than continuously; all methods increase generalization, but PAPA tends to perform best. PAPA reduces the performance gap between averaging and ensembling, increasing the average accuracy of a population of models by up to 0.8% on CIFAR-10, 1.9% on CIFAR-100, and 1.6% on ImageNet when compared to training independent (non-averaged) models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".