generative training
T5Score: Discriminative Fine-tuning of Generative Evaluation Metrics
Qin, Yiwei, Yuan, Weizhe, Neubig, Graham, Liu, Pengfei
Modern embedding-based metrics for evaluation of generated text generally fall into one of two paradigms: discriminative metrics that are trained to directly predict which outputs are of higher quality according to supervised human annotations, and generative metrics that are trained to evaluate text based on the probabilities of a generative model. Both have their advantages; discriminative metrics are able to directly optimize for the problem of distinguishing between good and bad outputs, while generative metrics can be trained using abundant raw text. In this paper, we present a framework that combines the best of both worlds, using both supervised and unsupervised signals from whatever data we have available. We operationalize this idea by training T5Score, a metric that uses these training signals with mT5 as the backbone. We perform an extensive empirical comparison with other existing metrics on 5 datasets, 19 languages and 280 systems, demonstrating the utility of our method. Experimental results show that: T5Score achieves the best performance on all datasets against existing top-scoring metrics at the segment level. We release our code and models at https://github.com/qinyiwei/T5Score.
- Europe > Italy > Tuscany > Florence (0.04)
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania > Allegheny County > Pittsburgh (0.04)
- North America > United States > New York (0.04)
- Europe > Albania > Tirana County > Tirana (0.04)
Application of Quantum Annealing to Training of Deep Neural Networks
Adachi, Steven H., Henderson, Maxwell P.
In Deep Learning, a well-known approach for training a Deep Neural Network starts by training a generative Deep Belief Network model, typically using Contrastive Divergence (CD), then fine-tuning the weights using backpropagation or other discriminative techniques. However, the generative training can be time-consuming due to the slow mixing of Gibbs sampling. We investigated an alternative approach that estimates model expectations of Restricted Boltzmann Machines using samples from a D-Wave quantum annealing machine. We tested this method on a coarse-grained version of the MNIST data set. In our tests we found that the quantum sampling-based training approach achieves comparable or better accuracy with significantly fewer iterations of generative training than conventional CD-based training. Further investigation is needed to determine whether similar improvements can be achieved for other data sets, and to what extent these improvements can be attributed to quantum effects.
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania > Montgomery County > King of Prussia (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Directed Networks > Bayesian Learning (0.55)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Undirected Networks > Markov Models (0.35)
Generative versus discriminative training of RBMs for classification of fMRI images
Schmah, Tanya, Hinton, Geoffrey E., Small, Steven L., Strother, Stephen, Zemel, Richard S.
Neuroimaging datasets often have a very large number of voxels and a very small number of training cases, which means that overfitting of models for this data can become a very serious problem. Working with a set of fMRI images from a study on stroke recovery, we consider a classification task for which logistic regression performs poorly, even when L1-or L2-regularized. We show that much better discrimination can be achieved by fitting a generative model to each separate condition and then seeing which model is most likely to have generated the data. We compare discriminative training of exactly the same set of models, and we also consider convex blends of generative and discriminative training.
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Toronto (0.48)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.05)
- North America > United States > Illinois > Cook County > Chicago (0.04)
- Health & Medicine > Therapeutic Area > Neurology (1.00)
- Health & Medicine > Health Care Technology (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Directed Networks > Bayesian Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (0.95)
Generative versus discriminative training of RBMs for classification of fMRI images
Schmah, Tanya, Hinton, Geoffrey E., Small, Steven L., Strother, Stephen, Zemel, Richard S.
Neuroimaging datasets often have a very large number of voxels and a very small number of training cases, which means that overfitting of models for this data can become a very serious problem. Working with a set of fMRI images from a study on stroke recovery, we consider a classification task for which logistic regression performs poorly, even when L1-or L2-regularized. We show that much better discrimination can be achieved by fitting a generative model to each separate condition and then seeing which model is most likely to have generated the data. We compare discriminative training of exactly the same set of models, and we also consider convex blends of generative and discriminative training.
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Toronto (0.48)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.05)
- North America > United States > Illinois > Cook County > Chicago (0.04)
- Health & Medicine > Therapeutic Area > Neurology (1.00)
- Health & Medicine > Health Care Technology (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Directed Networks > Bayesian Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (0.95)
- Health & Medicine > Therapeutic Area > Neurology (1.00)
- Health & Medicine > Health Care Technology (1.00)
- Health & Medicine > Diagnostic Medicine > Imaging (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Directed Networks > Bayesian Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (0.70)