Goal: ideally representations should allow linear probes to perfectly predict any task that is invariant to augmentations in the most sample-efficient way
Q: Which of the following representation is optimal?
2/8
A: last one.
More generally we show that representations are optimal if and only if: 1. *Predictability*: linear probes can predict equivalence classes 2. *High dimension*: representation dim d=# equiv-1 3. *Invariance*: representation of equivalent examples collapse
3/8
Key: ideal SSL = supervised classification from high dim. space to equiv. classes using probing architecture
This leads to a unifying SSL framework (contrastive or not) with actionable insights eg how to
- choose projection heads
- choose dim.
- simplify non-contrast. SSL 4/8
**Dimension**
We just showed that the dimensionality of representation should ideally be number of equivalence classes => much larger than currently
Smartly increasing dimension has a huge impact on performance without increasing parameters!!
≥ 2% acc gains on ImageNet 5/8
**Projection heads**
Current SSL uses 2 siamese networks with MLP projection heads
We prove that one head should be linear
Intuition: representations should be pretrained as they will be used downstream.
linear probing => one linear projection
This gives ≥ 1% acc gains 6/8
**Non-contrastive SSL**
We show that most prior non-contrastive objectives are approximations of optimal SSL
We provide DISSL: a much simpler objective (no stop-gradients / no EMA / no Sinkhorn) that better approximates optimal SSL
DISSL outperforms SwAV/DINO 7/8
Other actionable insights in the paper eg:
- how to perform SSL for non-linear probes
- choosing augmentations
If you are at #NeurIPS2022 come to our poster Hall J #905 tomorrow 4-6pm
✅ highest correlation with Chat Arena (0.98)
✅ no reannotation
✅ simple interpretation: win rate if model length = baseline length
✅ robust to length gamification
0.98 that’s essentially evaluation on Arena but in 3min and <$10.
Key: predict what the win rate would be if model length=baseline length
We: 1. fit GLM: model | length | instruction -> preference 2. predict preference conditioned on baseline length
Benefits:
✅easily extendible to other biases
✅nice math properties
✅no reannotation needed
Length-controlled AE is much more robust to verbosity gameability.
Below we show the metrics change when you prompt models to:
- “give as much detail as possible” (verbose) or
- “be as concise as possible [...]” (concise)
I played with @AnthropicAI assistant (AA) and compared it to @OpenAI ChatGPT
TLDR: both are similar but AA is
+ Harder to jailbreak
+ Tries to be more helpful
+ Follows closer what we ask for
+ ~Better for writing in English
- Worst for code
- Worst in French
- Longer resp.
🧵
**Coding**
CGPT is better
Quantitative (leetcode hard in python/c/javascript):
- CGPT: 3/3
- AA: 1/3 only got python correct
Qualitative:
- CGPT: more reliable/concise/efficient
- AA: more comments + emphasizes explainability
both are wrong when asked for impossible algo 2/8
**Writing**
Both are similar but AA generally follows closer what it's asked for. But AA is less concise as it explains what it says and asks how it can help, which can be annoying as it takes more time to generate.