$f$-MICL: Understanding and Generalizing InfoNCE-based Contrastive Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In self-supervised contrastive learning, a widely-adopted objective function is InfoNCE, which uses the heuristic cosine similarity for the representation comparison, and is closely related to maximizing the Kullback-Leibler (KL)-based mutual information. In this paper, we aim at answering two intriguing questions: (1) Can we go beyond the KL-based objective? (2) Besides the popular cosine similarity, can we design a better similarity function? We provide answers to both questions by generalizing the KL-based mutual information to the $f$-Mutual Information in Contrastive Learning ($f$-MICL) using the $f$-divergences. To answer the first question, we provide a wide range of $f$-MICL objectives which share the nice properties of InfoNCE (e.g., alignment and uniformity), and meanwhile result in similar or even superior performance. For the second question, assuming that the joint feature distribution is proportional to the Gaussian kernel, we derive an $f$-Gaussian similarity with better interpretability and empirical performance. Finally, we identify close relationships between the $f$-MICL objective and several popular InfoNCE-based objectives. Using benchmark tasks from both vision and natural language, we empirically evaluate $f$-MICL with different $f$-divergences on various architectures (SimCLR, MoCo, and MoCo v3) and datasets. We observe that $f$-MICL generally outperforms the benchmarks and the best-performing $f$-divergence is task and dataset dependent.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".