MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W779272567

Understanding deep architectures and the effect of unsupervised pre-training

2011· dissertation· en· W779272567 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer scienceGeneralizationMachine learningArtificial neural networkClass (philosophy)Unsupervised learningSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)Variation (astronomy)Deep belief networkDeep neural networksRestricted Boltzmann machineMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis studies a class of algorithms called deep architectures. We argue that models that are based on a shallow composition of local features are not appropriate for the set of real-world functions and datasets that are of interest to us, namely data with many factors of variation. Modelling such functions and datasets is important if we are hoping to create an intelligent agent that can learn from complicated data. Deep architectures are hypothesized to be a step in the right direction, as they are compositions of nonlinearities and can learn compact distributed representations of data with many factors of variation. Training fully-connected artificial neural networks—the most common form of a deep architecture—was not possible before Hinton (2006) showed that one can use stacks of unsupervised Restricted Boltzmann Machines to initialize or pre-train a supervised multi-layer network. This breakthrough has been influential, as the basic idea of using unsupervised learning to improve generalization in deep networks has been reproduced in a multitude of other settings and models. In this thesis, we cast the deep learning ideas and techniques as defining a special kind of inductive bias. This bias is defined not only by the kind of functions that are eventually represented by such deep models, but also by the learning process that is commonly used for them. This work is a study of the reasons for why this class of functions generalizes well, the situations where they should work well, and the qualitative statements that one could make about such functions. This thesis is thus an attempt to understand why deep architectures work. In the first of the articles presented we study the question of how well our intuitions about the need for deep models correspond to functions that they can actually model well. In the second article we perform an in-depth study of why unsupervised pre-training helps deep learning and explore a variety of hypotheses that give us an intuition for the dynamics of learning in such architectures. Finally, in the third article, we want to better understand what a deep architecture models, qualitatively speaking. Our visualization approach enables us to understand the representations and invariances modelled and learned by deeper layers. Keywords: machine learning, artificial neural networks, deep architectures, unsupervised learning, visualization.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.242
Teacher spread0.207 · 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