MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391971355 · doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ad0a8c

A simple probabilistic neural network for machine understanding

2024· article· en· W4391971355 on OpenAlexaff
Rongrong Xie, Matteo Marsili

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Probabilistic logicArtificial neural networkComputer scienceProbabilistic neural networkArtificial intelligenceMachine learningTime delay neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We discuss the concept of probabilistic neural networks with a fixed internal representation being models for machine understanding. Here, ‘understanding’ is interpretted as the ability to map data to an already existing representation which encodes an a priori organisation of the feature space. We derive the internal representation by requiring that it satisfies the principles of maximal relevance and of maximal ignorance about how different features are combined. We show that, when hidden units are binary variables, these two principles identify a unique model—the hierarchical feature model—which is fully solvable and provides a natural interpretation in terms of features. We argue that learning machines with this architecture possess a number of interesting properties, such as the continuity of the representation with respect to changes in parameters and data, the possibility of controlling the level of compression and the ability to support functions that go beyond generalisation. We explore the behaviour of the model with extensive numerical experiments and argue that models in which the internal representation is fixed reproduce a learning modality which is qualitatively different from that of traditional models, such as restricted Boltzmann machines.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and ExperimentSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207