Transformer Meets Gated Residual Networks To Enhance Photoplethysmogram Artifact Detection Informed by Mutual Information Neural Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study delves into the effectiveness of various learning methods in improving Transformer models, focusing particularly on the Gated Residual Network Transformer (GRN-Transformer) in the context of pediatric intensive care units (PICU) with limited data availability. Our findings indicate that Transformers trained via supervised learning are less effective compared to MLP, CNN, and LSTM networks in such environments. Yet, leveraging unsupervised and self-supervised learning on unannotated data, with subsequent fine-tuning on annotated data, notably enhances Transformer performance, although not to the level of the GRN-Transformer. Central to our research is the analysis of different activation functions for the Gated Linear Unit (GLU), a crucial element of the GRN structure. We also employ Mutual Information Neural Estimation (MINE) to evaluate the GRN's contribution. Additionally, the study examines the effects of integrating GRN within the Transformer's Attention mechanism versus using it as a separate intermediary layer. Our results highlight that GLU with sigmoid activation stands out, achieving 0.98 accuracy, 0.91 precision, 0.96 recall, and 0.94 F1 score. The MINE analysis supports the hypothesis that GRN enhances the mutual information between the hidden representations and the output. Moreover, the use of GRN as an intermediate filter layer proves more beneficial than incorporating it within the Attention mechanism. In summary, this research clarifies how GRN bolsters GRN-Transformer's performance, surpassing other learning techniques. These findings offer a promising avenue for adopting sophisticated models like Transformers in data-constrained environments, such as PPG artifact detection in PICU settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".