Learning and Aligning Structured Random Feature Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are considered 'black boxes'' due to the difficulty of interpreting their learned weights. While choosing the best features is not well understood, random feature networks (RFNs) and wavelet scattering ground some ANN learning mechanisms in function space with tractable mathematics. Meanwhile, the genetic code has evolved over millions of years, shaping the brain to develop variable neural circuits with reliable structure that resemble RFNs. We explore a similar approach, embedding neuro-inspired, wavelet-like weights into multilayer RFNs. These can outperform scattering and have kernels that describe their function space at large width. We build learnable and deeper versions of these models where we can optimize separate spatial and channel covariances of the convolutional weight distributions. We find that these networks can perform comparatively with conventional ANNs while dramatically reducing the number of trainable parameters. Channel covariances are most influential, and both weight and activation alignment are needed for classification performance. Our work outlines how neuro-inspired configurations may lead to better performance in key cases and offers a potentially tractable reduced model for ANN learning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".