Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 3, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Two methods are presented that perturb a given learning rate schedule in stochastic gradient descent with cross entropy loss. Both methods use an extra forward pass to estimate various derivatives of the minibatch loss. The first method selects a value $η$ by linearising the softmax values and minimizing the squared error $\tfrac 1 2 ||y - q - ηq'||_F^2$, where $q$ is the matrix representing the softmax values of the minibatch and $y$ is the matrix with one-hot encodings of the labels. The second method considers a quadratic Taylor approximation of the minibatch loss under the outer approximation of the Hessian. Thus, it minimizes $L(0) + ηL'(0) + \tfrac 1 2 η^2 L''(0)$. Here, the derivatives $L'$ and $L''$ are computed from the derivatives of the logits (using the outer approximation of the Hessian of the loss). We observe that both methods give very similar values of $η$. Finally, these estimated $η$ are used to slightly increase or decrease the learning rate of an existing schedule. The method is evaluated on Cifar10 and Cifar100 datasets for training Resnets, where they decrease the loss faster than the schedule that is perturbed and increase monotonicity. For Cifar10 it also leads to a small improvement of test accuracy, but in Cifar100 test accuracy remains the same.