Generalizing Similarity in Noisy Setups: The DIBS Phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work uncovers an interplay among data density, noise, and the generalization ability in similarity learning. We consider Siamese Neural Networks (SNNs), which are the basic form of contrastive learning, and explore two types of noise that can impact SNNs, Pair Label Noise (PLN) and Single Label Noise (SLN). Our investigation reveals that SNNs exhibit double descent behaviour regardless of the training setup and that it is further exacerbated by noise. We demonstrate that the density of data pairs is crucial for generalization. When SNNs are trained on sparse datasets with the same amount of PLN or SLN, they exhibit comparable generalization properties. However, when using dense datasets, PLN cases generalize worse than SLN ones in the overparametrized region, leading to a phenomenon we call Density-Induced Break of Similarity (DIBS). In this regime, PLN similarity violation becomes macroscopical, corrupting the dataset to the point where complete interpolation cannot be achieved, regardless of the number of model parameters. Our analysis also delves into the correspondence between online optimization and offline generalization in similarity learning. The results show that this equivalence fails in the presence of label noise in all the scenarios considered.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".