Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The Trade-off between Universality and Label Efficiency of Representations from Contrastive Learning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.00106 v1 pith:CM6VR7XV submitted 2023-02-28 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords datalearningrepresentationcontrastivetasksanalysistrade-offuniversality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Pre-training representations (a.k.a. foundation models) has recently become a prevalent learning paradigm, where one first pre-trains a representation using large-scale unlabeled data, and then learns simple predictors on top of the representation using small labeled data from the downstream tasks. There are two key desiderata for the representation: label efficiency (the ability to learn an accurate classifier on top of the representation with a small amount of labeled data) and universality (usefulness across a wide range of downstream tasks). In this paper, we focus on one of the most popular instantiations of this paradigm: contrastive learning with linear probing, i.e., learning a linear predictor on the representation pre-trained by contrastive learning. We show that there exists a trade-off between the two desiderata so that one may not be able to achieve both simultaneously. Specifically, we provide analysis using a theoretical data model and show that, while more diverse pre-training data result in more diverse features for different tasks (improving universality), it puts less emphasis on task-specific features, giving rise to larger sample complexity for down-stream supervised tasks, and thus worse prediction performance. Guided by this analysis, we propose a contrastive regularization method to improve the trade-off. We validate our analysis and method empirically with systematic experiments using real-world datasets and foundation models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can LLM Improve for Expert Forecast Combination? Evidence from the European Central Bank Survey

    stat.AP 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A zero-shot LLM prompt beats equal-weighted averaging for one-year ECB SPF forecasts in one regression, but the result is fragile, the comparison is asymmetric, and no code or data are provided.

Pith tools