Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite constant progress in terms of available computational power, memory and amount of data, machine learning algorithms need to be efficient in how they use them. Although minimizing cost is an obvious major concern, another motivation is to attempt to design algorithms that can learn as efficiently as intelligent species. This thesis tackles the problem of efficient learning through various papers dealing with a wide range of machine learning algorithms: this topic is seen both from the point of view of computational efficiency (processing power and memory required by the algorithms) and of statistical efficiency (number of samples necessary to solve a given learning task). The first contribution of this thesis is in shedding light on various statistical inefficiencies in existing algorithms. Indeed, we show that decision trees do not generalize well on tasks with some particular properties (chapter 3), and that a similar flaw affects typical graph-based semi-supervised learning algorithms (chapter 5). This flaw is a form of curse of dimensionality that is specific to each of these algorithms. For a subclass of neural networks, called sum-product networks, we prove that using networks with a single hidden layer can be exponentially less efficient than when using deep networks (chapter 4). Our analyses help better understand some inherent flaws found in these algorithms, and steer research towards approaches that may potentially overcome them. We also exhibit computational inefficiencies in popular graph-based semi-supervised learning algorithms (chapter 5) as well as in the learning of mixtures of Gaussians with missing data (chapter 6). In both cases we propose new algorithms that make it possible to scale to much larger datasets. The last two chapters also deal with computational efficiency, but in different ways. Chapter 7 presents a new view on the contrastive divergence algorithm (which has been used for efficient training of restricted Boltzmann machines). It provides additional insight on the reasons why this algorithm has been so successful. Finally, in chapter 8 we describe an application of machine learning to video games, where computational efficiency is tied to software and hardware engineering constraints which, although often ignored in research papers, are ubiquitous in practice. Keywords: computational efficiency, statistical efficiency, curse of dimensionality, decision trees, neural networks, graph-based semi-supervised learning, contrastive divergence, mixtures of Gaussians, matchmaking.
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 | 0.014 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".