Mila’s AI for Climate Studio aims to bridge the gap between technology and impact to unlock the potential of AI in tackling the climate crisis rapidly and on a massive scale.
The program recently published its first policy brief, titled "Policy Considerations at the Intersection of Quantum Technologies and Artificial Intelligence," authored by Padmapriya Mohan.
Hugo Larochelle appointed Scientific Director of Mila
An adjunct professor at the Université de Montréal and former head of Google's AI lab in Montréal, Hugo Larochelle is a pioneer in deep learning and one of Canada’s most respected researchers.
We use cookies to analyze the browsing and usage of our website and to personalize your experience. You can disable these technologies at any time, but this may limit certain functionalities of the site. Read our Privacy Policy for more information.
Setting cookies
You can enable and disable the types of cookies you wish to accept. However certain choices you make could affect the services offered on our sites (e.g. suggestions, personalised ads, etc.).
Essential cookies
These cookies are necessary for the operation of the site and cannot be deactivated. (Still active)
Analytics cookies
Do you accept the use of cookies to measure the audience of our sites?
Multimedia Player
Do you accept the use of cookies to display and allow you to watch the video content hosted by our partners (YouTube, etc.)?
Neural network training is inherently sensitive to initialization and the randomness induced by stochastic gradient descent. However, it is … (see more)unclear to what extent such effects lead to meaningfully different networks, either in terms of the models' weights or the underlying functions that were learned. In this work, we show that during the initial "chaotic" phase of training, even extremely small perturbations reliably causes otherwise identical training trajectories to diverge-an effect that diminishes rapidly over training time. We quantify this divergence through (i)
Neural network training begins with a chaotic phase in which the network is sensitive to small perturbations, such as those caused by stocha… (see more)stic gradient descent (SGD). This sensitivity can cause identically initialized networks to diverge both in parameter space and functional similarity.
However, the exact degree to which networks are sensitive to perturbation, and the sensitivity of networks as they transition out of the chaotic phase, is unclear.
To address this uncertainty, we apply a controlled perturbation at a single point in training time and measure its effect on otherwise identical training trajectories.
We find that both the
Motivated by the goals of dataset pruning and defect identification, a growing body of methods have been developed to score individual examp… (see more)les within a dataset. These methods, which we call"example difficulty scores", are typically used to rank or categorize examples, but the consistency of rankings between different training runs, scoring methods, and model architectures is generally unknown. To determine how example rankings vary due to these random and controlled effects, we systematically compare different formulations of scores over a range of runs and model architectures. We find that scores largely share the following traits: they are noisy over individual runs of a model, strongly correlated with a single notion of difficulty, and reveal examples that range from being highly sensitive to insensitive to the inductive biases of certain model architectures. Drawing from statistical genetics, we develop a simple method for fingerprinting model architectures using a few sensitive examples. These findings guide practitioners in maximizing the consistency of their scores (e.g. by choosing appropriate scoring methods, number of runs, and subsets of examples), and establishes comprehensive baselines for evaluating scores in the future.
Motivated by the goals of dataset pruning and defect identification, a growing body of methods have been developed to score individual examp… (see more)les within a dataset. These methods, which we call"example difficulty scores", are typically used to rank or categorize examples, but the consistency of rankings between different training runs, scoring methods, and model architectures is generally unknown. To determine how example rankings vary due to these random and controlled effects, we systematically compare different formulations of scores over a range of runs and model architectures. We find that scores largely share the following traits: they are noisy over individual runs of a model, strongly correlated with a single notion of difficulty, and reveal examples that range from being highly sensitive to insensitive to the inductive biases of certain model architectures. Drawing from statistical genetics, we develop a simple method for fingerprinting model architectures using a few sensitive examples. These findings guide practitioners in maximizing the consistency of their scores (e.g. by choosing appropriate scoring methods, number of runs, and subsets of examples), and establishes comprehensive baselines for evaluating scores in the future.