Correlational Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common representation learning (CRL), wherein different descriptions (or views) of the data are embedded in a common subspace, has been receiving a lot of attention recently. Two popular paradigms here are canonical correlation analysis (CCA)-based approaches and autoencoder (AE)-based approaches. CCA-based approaches learn a joint representation by maximizing correlation of the views when projected to the common subspace. AE-based methods learn a common representation by minimizing the error of reconstructing the two views. Each of these approaches has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, while CCA-based approaches outperform AE-based approaches for the task of transfer learning, they are not as scalable as the latter. In this work, we propose an AE-based approach, correlational neural network (CorrNet), that explicitly maximizes correlation among the views when projected to the common subspace. Through a series of experiments, we demonstrate that the proposed CorrNet is better than AE and CCA with respect to its ability to learn correlated common representations. We employ CorrNet for several cross-language tasks and show that the representations learned using it perform better than the ones learned using other state-of-the-art approaches.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".