SOTAVerified

Guarding Barlow Twins Against Overfitting with Mixed Samples

2023-12-04Code Available1· sign in to hype

Wele Gedara Chaminda Bandara, Celso M. de Melo, Vishal M. Patel

Code Available — Be the first to reproduce this paper.

Reproduce

Code

Abstract

Self-supervised Learning (SSL) aims to learn transferable feature representations for downstream applications without relying on labeled data. The Barlow Twins algorithm, renowned for its widespread adoption and straightforward implementation compared to its counterparts like contrastive learning methods, minimizes feature redundancy while maximizing invariance to common corruptions. Optimizing for the above objective forces the network to learn useful representations, while avoiding noisy or constant features, resulting in improved downstream task performance with limited adaptation. Despite Barlow Twins' proven effectiveness in pre-training, the underlying SSL objective can inadvertently cause feature overfitting due to the lack of strong interaction between the samples unlike the contrastive learning approaches. From our experiments, we observe that optimizing for the Barlow Twins objective doesn't necessarily guarantee sustained improvements in representation quality beyond a certain pre-training phase, and can potentially degrade downstream performance on some datasets. To address this challenge, we introduce Mixed Barlow Twins, which aims to improve sample interaction during Barlow Twins training via linearly interpolated samples. This results in an additional regularization term to the original Barlow Twins objective, assuming linear interpolation in the input space translates to linearly interpolated features in the feature space. Pre-training with this regularization effectively mitigates feature overfitting and further enhances the downstream performance on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, TinyImageNet, STL-10, and ImageNet datasets. The code and checkpoints are available at: https://github.com/wgcban/mix-bt.git

Tasks

Benchmark Results

DatasetModelMetricClaimedVerifiedStatus
CIFAR10ResNet50average top-1 classification accuracy93.89—Unverified
CIFAR10ResNet18average top-1 classification accuracy92.58—Unverified
cifar100ResNet50average top-1 classification accuracy72.51—Unverified
cifar100ResNet18average top-1 classification accuracy69.31—Unverified
STL-10ResNet18Accuracy91.02—Unverified
STL-10ResNet50Accuracy91.7—Unverified
TinyImageNetResNet18average top-1 classification accuracy51.67—Unverified
TinyImageNetResNet50average top-1 classification accuracy51.84—Unverified

Reproductions