A joint initiative of CIFAR and Mila, the AI Insights for Policymakers Program connects decision-makers with leading AI researchers through office hours and policy feasibility testing. The next session will be held on October 9 and 10.
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.
Mila is hosting its first quantum computing hackathon on November 21, a unique day to explore quantum and AI prototyping, collaborate on Quandela and IBM platforms, and learn, share, and network in a stimulating environment at the heart of Quebec’s AI and quantum ecosystem.
This new initiative aims to strengthen connections between Mila’s research community, its partners, and AI experts across Quebec and Canada through in-person meetings and events focused on AI adoption in industry.
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.