Pith. sign in

REVIEW

On the Surrogate Gap between Contrastive and Supervised Losses

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 2110.02501 v2 pith:RCJX3HMF submitted 2021-10-06 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords negativesamplecontrastivedownstreamlosssurrogateclassificationbounds
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Contrastive representation learning encourages data representation to make semantically similar pairs closer than randomly drawn negative samples, which has been successful in various domains such as vision, language, and graphs. Recent theoretical studies have attempted to explain the benefit of the large negative sample size by upper-bounding the downstream classification loss with the contrastive loss. However, the previous surrogate bounds have two drawbacks: they are only legitimate for a limited range of negative sample sizes and prohibitively large even within that range. Due to these drawbacks, there still does not exist a consensus on how negative sample size theoretically correlates with downstream classification performance. Following the simplified setting where positive pairs are drawn from the true distribution (not generated by data augmentation; as supposed in previous studies), this study establishes surrogate upper and lower bounds for the downstream classification loss for all negative sample sizes that best explain the empirical observations on the negative sample size in the earlier studies. Our bounds suggest that the contrastive loss can be viewed as a surrogate objective of the downstream loss and larger negative sample sizes improve downstream classification because the surrogate gap between contrastive and supervised losses decays. We verify that our theory is consistent with experiments on synthetic, vision, and language datasets.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools