MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biologically inspired deep residual networks

2023· article· en· W4385505632 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Prathibha Varghese, Arockia Selva Saroja

Bibliographic record

VenueIAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidualResidual neural networkComputer scienceGeneralizability theoryConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceDeep learningArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Convolution (computer science)Margin (machine learning)Discriminative modelEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionNetwork architectureDeep neural networksMachine learningAlgorithmMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many difficult computer vision issues have been effectively tackled by deep neural networks. Not only that but it was discovered that traditional residual neural networks (ResNet) captures features with high generalizability, rendering it a cutting-edge convolutional neural network (CNN). The images classified by the authors of this research introduce a deep residual neural network that is biologically inspired introduces hexagonal convolutions along the skip connection. With the competitive training techniques, the effectiveness of several ResNet variations using square and hexagonal convolution is assessed. Using the hex-convolution on skip connection, we designed a family of ResNet architecture,hexagonal residual neural network (HexResNet), which achieves the highest testing accuracy of 94.02%, and 55.71% on Canadian Institute For Advanced Research (CIFAR)-10 and TinyImageNet, respectively. We demonstrate that the suggested method improves vanilla ResNet architectures’ baseline image classification accuracy on the CIFAR-10 dataset, and a similar effect was seen on the TinyImageNet dataset. For Tiny- ImageNet and CIFAR-10, we saw an average increase in accuracy of 1.46% and 0.48% in the baseline Top-1 accuracy, respectively. The generalized performance of advancements was reported for the suggested bioinspired deep residual networks. This represents an area that might be explored more extensively in the future to enhance all the discriminative power of image classification systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIAES International Journal of Artificial IntelligenceSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207