Balanced mixture of supernets for learning the CNN pooling architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Downsampling layers, including pooling and strided convolutions, are crucial components of the convolutional neural network architecture that determine both the granularity/scale of image feature analysis as well as the receptive field size of a given layer. To fully understand this problem we analyse the performance of models independently trained with each pooling configurations on CIFAR10, using a ResNet20 network and show that the position of the downsampling layers can highly influence the performance of a network and predefined downsampling configurations are not optimal. Network Architecture Search (NAS) might be used to optimize downsampling configurations as an hyperparameter. However, we find that common one-shot NAS based on a single SuperNet do not work for this problem. We argue that this is because a SuperNet trained for finding the optimal pooling configuration fully shares its parameters among all pooling configurations. This makes its training hard because learning some configurations can harm the performance of others. Therefore, we propose a balanced mixture of SuperNets that automatically associates pooling configurations to different weight models and helps to reduce the weight-sharing and interinfluence of pooling configurations on the SuperNet parameters. We evaluate our proposed approach on CIFAR10, CIFAR100, as well as Food101, and show that in all cases our model outperforms other approaches and improves over the default pooling configurations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".