MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413144690 · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.00451

HOT: Hadamard-based Optimized Training

2025· article· en· W4413144690 on OpenAlexaff
Seonggon Kim, Juncheol Shin, Seung-taek Woo, Eunhyeok Park

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpreadsheets and End-User Computing
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHadamard transformTraining (meteorology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has become increasingly important to optimize backpropagation to reduce memory usage and computational overhead. Achieving this goal is highly challenging, as multiple objectives must be considered jointly while maintaining training quality. In this paper, we focus on matrix multiplication, which accounts for the largest portion of training costs, and analyze its backpropagation in detail to identify lightweight techniques that offer the best benefits. Based on this analysis, we introduce a novel method, Hadamard-based Optimized Training (HOT). In this approach, we apply Hadamard-based optimizations, such as Hadamard quantization and Hadamard low-rank approximation, selectively and with awareness of the suitability of each optimization for different backward paths. Additionally, we introduce two enhancements: activation buffer compression and layer-wise quantizer selection. Our extensive analysis shows that HOT achieves up to 75% memory savings and a 2.6× acceleration on real GPUs, with negligible accuracy loss compared to FP32 precision. Our code is available at https://github.com/sungonuni/HOT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpreadsheets and End-User ComputingFrench-language works237,207