MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312477916 · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01404

Dual Temperature Helps Contrastive Learning Without Many Negative Samples: Towards Understanding and Simplifying MoCo

2022· article· en· W4312477916 on OpenAlexaff
Chaoning Zhang, Kang Zhang, Trung X. Pham, Axi Niu, Zhinan Qiao, Chang D. Yoo, In So Kweon

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)Computer scienceMargin (machine learning)Code (set theory)Sample (material)Point (geometry)Momentum (technical analysis)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMachine learningChemistryMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contrastive learning (CL) is widely known to require many negative samples, 65536 in MoCo for instance, for which the performance of a dictionary-free framework is often inferior because the negative sample size (NSS) is limited by its mini-batch size (MBS). To decouple the NSS from the MBS, a dynamic dictionary has been adopted in a large volume of CL frameworks, among which arguably the most popular one is MoCo family. In essence, MoCo adopts a momentum-based queue dictionary, for which we perform a fine-grained analysis of its size and consistency. We point out that InfoNCE loss used in MoCo implicitly attract anchors to their corresponding positive sample with various strength of penalties and identify such inter-anchor hardness-awareness property as a major reason for the necessity of a large dictionary. Our findings motivate us to simplify MoCo v2 via the removal of its dictionary as well as momentum. Based on an InfoNCE with the proposed dual temperature, our simplified frameworks, Sim-MoCo and SimCo, outperform MoCo v2 by a visible margin. Moreover, our work bridges the gap between CL and non-CL frameworks, contributing to a more unified under-standing of these two mainstream frameworks in SSL. Code is available at: https://bit.ly/3LkQbaT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)Same topicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningFrench-language works237,207