MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387324024 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.00893

Engineering the Neural Collapse Geometry of Supervised-Contrastive Loss

2023· preprint· en· W4387324024 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jaidev Gill, Vala Vakilian, Christos Thrampoulidis

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKing Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyUniversities Space Research AssociationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEmbeddingLimitingArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Entropy (arrow of time)Benchmark (surveying)Feature (linguistics)GeometryCross entropyArtificial neural networkFeature vectorPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningMathematicsAlgorithmEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supervised-contrastive loss (SCL) is an alternative to cross-entropy (CE) for classification tasks that makes use of similarities in the embedding space to allow for richer representations. In this work, we propose methods to engineer the geometry of these learnt feature embeddings by modifying the contrastive loss. In pursuit of adjusting the geometry we explore the impact of prototypes, fixed embeddings included during training to alter the final feature geometry. Specifically, through empirical findings, we demonstrate that the inclusion of prototypes in every batch induces the geometry of the learnt embeddings to align with that of the prototypes. We gain further insights by considering a limiting scenario where the number of prototypes far outnumber the original batch size. Through this, we establish a connection to cross-entropy (CE) loss with a fixed classifier and normalized embeddings. We validate our findings by conducting a series of experiments with deep neural networks on benchmark vision 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.127 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207