Rethinking The Uniformity Metric in Self-Supervised Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uniformity plays an important role in evaluating learned representations, providing insights into self-supervised learning. In our quest for effective uniformity metrics, we pinpoint four principled properties that such metrics should possess. Namely, an effective uniformity metric should remain invariant to instance permutations and sample replications while accurately capturing feature redundancy and dimensional collapse. Surprisingly, we find that the uniformity metric proposed by \citet{Wang2020UnderstandingCR} fails to satisfy the majority of these properties. Specifically, their metric is sensitive to sample replications, and can not account for feature redundancy and dimensional collapse correctly. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a new uniformity metric based on the Wasserstein distance, which satisfies all the aforementioned properties. Integrating this new metric in existing self-supervised learning methods effectively mitigates dimensional collapse and consistently improves their performance on downstream tasks involving CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets. Code is available at \url{https://github.com/statsle/WassersteinSSL}.
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 | 0.012 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".