Evolutionary Augmentation Policy Optimization for Self-Supervised Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-supervised Learning (SSL) is a machine learning algorithm for pretraining Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) without requiring manually labeled data. The central idea of this learning technique is based on an auxiliary stage aka pretext task in which labeled data are created automatically through data augmentation and exploited for pretraining the DNN. However, the effect of each pretext task is not well studied or compared in the literature. In this paper, we study the contribution of augmentation operators on the performance of self supervised learning algorithms in a constrained settings. We propose an evolutionary search method for optimization of data augmentation pipeline in pretext tasks and measure the impact of augmentation operators in several SOTA SSL algorithms. By encoding different combination of augmentation operators in chromosomes we seek the optimal augmentation policies through an evolutionary optimization mechanism. We further introduce methods for analyzing and explaining the performance of optimized SSL algorithms. Our results indicate that our proposed method can find solutions that outperform the accuracy of classification of SSL algorithms which confirms the influence of augmentation policy choice on the overall performance of SSL algorithms. We also compare optimal SSL solutions found by our evolutionary search mechanism and show the effect of batch size in the pretext task on two visual datasets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".