On Using Quasirandom Sequences in Machine Learning for Model Weight Initialization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of training neural networks directly impacts computational costs, resource allocation, and model development timelines in machine learning applications. An optimizer's ability to train the model adequately (in terms of trained model performance) depends on the model's initial weights. Model weight initialization schemes use pseudorandom number generators (PRNGs) as a source of randomness. We investigate whether substituting PRNGs for low-discrepancy quasirandom number generators (QRNGs) -- namely Sobol' sequences -- as a source of randomness for initializers can improve model performance. We examine Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLP), Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Transformer architectures trained on MNIST, CIFAR-10, and IMDB datasets using SGD and Adam optimizers. Our analysis uses ten initialization schemes: Glorot, He, Lecun (both Uniform and Normal); Orthogonal, Random Normal, Truncated Normal, and Random Uniform. Models with weights set using PRNG- and QRNG-based initializers are compared pairwise for each combination of dataset, architecture, optimizer, and initialization scheme. Our findings indicate that QRNG-based neural network initializers either reach a higher accuracy or achieve the same accuracy more quickly than PRNG-based initializers in 60% of the 120 experiments conducted. Thus, using QRNG-based initializers instead of PRNG-based initializers can speed up and improve model training.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".