Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Unsupervised Embedding Quality Evaluation

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 2305.16562 v2 pith:PRAX7X47 submitted 2023-05-26 cs.LG stat.ML

classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords unsupervisedlearningqualitydeepembeddingmetricsnetworksself-supervised
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Unsupervised learning has recently significantly gained in popularity, especially with deep learning-based approaches. Despite numerous successes and approaching supervised-level performance on a variety of academic benchmarks, it is still hard to train and evaluate SSL models in practice due to the unsupervised nature of the problem. Even with networks trained in a supervised fashion, it is often unclear whether they will perform well when transferred to another domain. Past works are generally limited to assessing the amount of information contained in embeddings, which is most relevant for self-supervised learning of deep neural networks. This works chooses to follow a different approach: can we quantify how easy it is to linearly separate the data in a stable way? We survey the literature and uncover three methods that could be potentially used for evaluating quality of representations. We also introduce one novel method based on recent advances in understanding the high-dimensional geometric structure of self-supervised learning. We conduct extensive experiments and study the properties of these metrics and ones introduced in the previous work. Our results suggest that while there is no free lunch, there are metrics that can robustly estimate embedding quality in an unsupervised way.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Evaluating Loss Functions for Graph Neural Networks: Towards Pretraining and Generalization

    cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A benchmark of 7 GNNs and 30 losses on 3 graphs claims hybrid losses and GIN rank best on average, but a central summary table contradicts the paper's full results.

Pith tools