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
Despite the recent growth of theoretical studies and empirical successes of neural networks, gradient backpropagation is still the most widely used algorithm for training such networks. On the one hand, we have deterministic or full gradient (FG) approaches that have a cost proportional to the amount of training data used but have a linear convergence rate, and on the other hand, stochastic gradient (SG) methods that have a cost independent of the size of the dataset, but have a less optimal convergence rate than the determinist approaches. To combine the cost of the stochastic approach with the convergence rate of the deterministic approach, a stochastic average gradient (SAG) has been proposed. SAG is a method for optimizing the sum of a finite number of smooth convex functions. Like SG methods, the SAG method's iteration cost is independent of the number of terms in the sum. In this work, we propose to compare SAG to some standard optimizers used in machine learning. SAG converges faster than other optimizers on simple toy problems and performs better than many other optimizers on simple machine learning problems. We also propose a combination of SAG with the momentum algorithm and Adam. These combinations allow empirically higher speed and obtain better performance than the other methods, especially when the landscape of the function to optimize presents obstacles or is ill-conditioned.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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