Label-free Monitoring of Self-Supervised Learning Progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-supervised learning (SSL) is an effective method for exploiting unlabelled data to learn a high-level embedding space that can be used for various downstream tasks. However, existing methods to monitor the quality of the encoder — either during training for one model or to compare several trained models — still rely on access to annotated data. When SSL methodologies are applied to new data domains, a sufficiently large labelled dataset may not always be available. In this study, we propose several evaluation metrics which can be applied on the embeddings of unlabelled data and investigate their viability by comparing them to linear probe accuracy (a common metric which utilizes an annotated dataset). In particular, we apply k-means clustering and measure the clustering quality with the silhouette score and clustering agreement. We also measure the entropy of the embedding distribution. We find that while the clusters did correspond better to the ground truth annotations as training of the network progressed, label-free clustering metrics correlated with the linear probe accuracy only when training with SSL methods SimCLR and MoCo-v2, but not with SimSiam. Additionally, although entropy did not always have strong correlations with LP accuracy, this appears to be due to instability arising from early training, with the metric stabilizing and becoming more reliable at later stages of learning. Furthermore, while entropy generally decreases as learning progresses, this trend reverses for SimSiam. More research is required to establish the cause for this unexpected behaviour. Lastly, we find that while clustering based approaches are likely only viable for same-architecture comparisons, entropy may be architecture-independent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".