MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415724501 · doi:10.1002/sta4.70116

Tensor Train Recurrent Network Language Model Prediction

2025· article· en· W4415724501 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueStat · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicTensor decomposition and applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHuawei Technologies
KeywordsTensor (intrinsic definition)Convolutional neural networkRecurrent neural networkMatrix product stateComputationData compressionReduction (mathematics)Artificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Recurrent neural networks (RNN) such as long‐short‐term memory (LSTM) networks are essential in a multitude of daily tasks such as speech, language, video and multimodal learning. The shift from cloud to edge computation intensifies the need to contain the growth in size of RNNs. Current research on RNN shows that despite the performance obtained on convolutional neural networks (CNN), keeping a good performance in compressed RNNs is still a challenge. This paper shows that by incorporating informative matrix‐normal priors on the tensor weights, tensor‐compressed LSTM networks can achieve comparable performance to LSTM networks. Most literature on compression focuses on CNNs using matrix product (MPO) operator tensor trains. However, matrix product state (MPS) tensor trains have more attractive features in terms of storage reduction and computing time for prediction. The present work shows that MPS tensor trains should be at the forefront of LSTM network compression through a theoretical analysis and practical experiments on natural language processing (NLP) tasks.

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.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.315 · 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