Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userLagrangian or Eulerian; Real or Fourier? Not All Approaches to Large-Scale Structure Are Created Equal
286
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
Svetlin Tassev
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We present a pedagogical systematic investigation of the accuracy of Eulerian and Lagrangian perturbation theories of large-scale structure. We show that significant differences exist between them especially when trying to model the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO). We find that the best available model of the BAO in real space is the Zeldovich Approximation (ZA), giving an accuracy of <~3% at redshift of z=0 in modelling the matter 2-pt function around the acoustic peak. All corrections to the ZA around the BAO scale are perfectly perturbative in real space. Any attempt to achieve better precision requires calibrating the theory to simulations because of the need to renormalize those corrections. In contrast, theories which do not fully preserve the ZA as their solution, receive O(1) corrections around the acoustic peak in real space at z=0, and are thus of suspicious convergence at low redshift around the BAO. As an example, we find that a similar accuracy of 3% for the acoustic peak is achieved by Eulerian Standard Perturbation Theory (SPT) at linear order only at z~4. Thus even when SPT is perturbative, one needs to include loop corrections for z<~4 in real space. In Fourier space, all models perform similarly, and are controlled by the overdensity amplitude, thus recovering standard results. However, that comes at a price. Real space cleanly separates the BAO signal from non-linear dynamics. In contrast, Fourier space mixes signal from short mildly non-linear scales with the linear signal from the BAO to the level that non-linear contributions from short scales dominate. Therefore, one has little hope in constructing a systematic theory for the BAO in Fourier space.
rate research
Read More
Attention mechanisms have shown promising results in sequence modeling tasks that require long-term memory. Recent work investigated mechanisms to reduce the computational cost of preserving and storing memories. However, not all content in the past is equally important to remember. We propose Expire-Span, a method that learns to retain the most important information and expire the irrelevant information. This forgetting of memories enables Transformers to scale to attend over tens of thousands of previous timesteps efficiently, as not all states from previous timesteps are preserved. We demonstrate that Expire-Span can help models identify and retain critical information and show it can achieve strong performance on reinforcement learning tasks specifically designed to challenge this functionality. Next, we show that Expire-Span can scale to memories that are tens of thousands in size, setting a new state of the art on incredibly long context tasks such as character-level language modeling and a frame-by-frame moving objects task. Finally, we analyze the efficiency of Expire-Span compared to existing approaches and demonstrate that it trains faster and uses less memory.
Mutual knowledge distillation (MKD) improves a model by distilling knowledge from another model. However, not all knowledge is certain and correct, especially under adverse conditions. For example, label noise usually leads to less reliable models due to the undesired memorisation [1, 2]. Wrong knowledge misleads the learning rather than helps. This problem can be handled by two aspects: (i) improving the reliability of a model where the knowledge is from (i.e., knowledge sources reliability); (ii) selecting reliable knowledge for distillation. In the literature, making a model more reliable is widely studied while selective MKD receives little attention. Therefore, we focus on studying selective MKD and highlight its importance in this work. Concretely, a generic MKD framework, Confident knowledge selection followed by Mutual Distillation (CMD), is designed. The key component of CMD is a generic knowledge selection formulation, making the selection threshold either static (CMD-S) or progressive (CMD-P). Additionally, CMD covers two special cases: zero knowledge and all knowledge, leading to a unified MKD framework. We empirically find CMD-P performs better than CMD-S. The main reason is that a models knowledge upgrades and becomes confident as the training progresses. Extensive experiments are present to demonstrate the effectiveness of CMD and thoroughly justify the design of CMD. For example, CMD-P obtains new state-of-the-art results in robustness against label noise.
Generative adversarial networks (GAN) are a powerful subclass of generative models. Despite a very rich research activity leading to numerous interesting GAN algorithms, it is still very hard to assess which algorithm(s) perform better than others. We conduct a neutral, multi-faceted large-scale empirical study on state-of-the art models and evaluation measures. We find that most models can reach similar scores with enough hyperparameter optimization and random restarts. This suggests that improvements can arise from a higher computational budget and tuning more than fundamental algorithmic changes. To overcome some limitations of the current metrics, we also propose several data sets on which precision and recall can be computed. Our experimental results suggest that future GAN research should be based on more systematic and objective evaluation procedures. Finally, we did not find evidence that any of the tested algorithms consistently outperforms the non-saturating GAN introduced in cite{goodfellow2014generative}.
Empirical research in Natural Language Processing (NLP) has adopted a narrow set of principles for assessing hypotheses, relying mainly on p-value computation, which suffers from several known issues. While alternative proposals have been well-debated and adopted in other fields, they remain rarely discussed or used within the NLP community. We address this gap by contrasting various hypothesis assessment techniques, especially those not commonly used in the field (such as evaluations based on Bayesian inference). Since these statistical techniques differ in the hypotheses they can support, we argue that practitioners should first decide their target hypothesis before choosing an assessment method. This is crucial because common fallacies, misconceptions, and misinterpretation surrounding hypothesis assessment methods often stem from a discrepancy between what one would like to claim versus what the method used actually assesses. Our survey reveals that these issues are omnipresent in the NLP research community. As a step forward, we provide best practices and guidelines tailored to NLP research, as well as an easy-to-use package called HyBayes for Bayesian assessment of hypotheses, complementing existing tools.
Multilingual BERT (mBERT) trained on 104 languages has shown surprisingly good cross-lingual performance on several NLP tasks, even without explicit cross-lingual signals. However, these evaluations have focused on cross-lingual transfer with high-resource languages, covering only a third of the languages covered by mBERT. We explore how mBERT performs on a much wider set of languages, focusing on the quality of representation for low-resource languages, measured by within-language performance. We consider three tasks: Named Entity Recognition (99 languages), Part-of-speech Tagging, and Dependency Parsing (54 languages each). mBERT does better than or comparable to baselines on high resource languages but does much worse for low resource languages. Furthermore, monolingual BERT models for these languages do even worse. Paired with similar languages, the performance gap between monolingual BERT and mBERT can be narrowed. We find that better models for low resource languages require more efficient pretraining techniques or more data.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
