MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390450951 · doi:10.1145/3617233.3617240

Entropy-based Sampling for Streaming learning with Move-to-Data approach on Video

2023· article· en· W4390450951 on OpenAlexaff
Meghna P. Ayyar, Jenny Benois‐Pineau, Akka Zemmari, Hélène Amieva, Laura E. Middleton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetargetingComputer scienceForgettingArtificial intelligenceDeep learningConvolutional neural networkMachine learningEntropy (arrow of time)Artificial neural networkTransformerOn the flyStreaming dataData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current paradigm of training deep neural networks relies on large, annotated and representative datasets. They assume a static world where the target domain does not change. However, in the real-world, data changes over time and is often available on the fly. Naive retraining on new data causes catastrophic forgetting and the network is unable to generalize on old data. Streaming learning is a type of incremental learning where networks learn sequentially and as soon as a sample is available from the data stream. Instead of training on every new sample, we propose an uncertainty based selection criteria to improve our previously proposed fast streaming learning method Move-to-Data (MTD), called Entropy-based MTD (EMTD). Besides, streaming learning methods have so far mostly used Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) but in recent times Vision Transformers (ViTs) have shown much better performances for many vision tasks. Therefore, we use ViT based Video Transformer to analyse MTD, EMTD and their gradient descent based "retargeting" steps. We have compared the performances of EMTD with MTD (w/wo retargeting) and a popular streaming learning method ExStream for the transformer. EMTD is able to outperform baseline MTD, and EMTD with retargeting achieves close results as ExStream and is ∼ 1.2 times faster.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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 topicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningFrench-language works237,207