Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21dc98418df0acb

Jump to content

Talk:Self-supervised learning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Hibiscus192255 in topic Reliability of using medium as a source

Types

[edit]

Can someone explain how positive and negative examples are identified if the training data are unlabelled?  Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Rowat (talkcontribs) 01:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

This whole article seems pretty poorly written. The 'types' section seem to be comparing non-contrastive with contrastive learning, but these are not the only two approaches to self-supervised learning, there are many others.
Anyway to answer your question, actually what happens here, at least in computer vision, is positive pairs are usually generated through data augmentation. So we might have a picture of a bird and then a blurred version of that picture - these two images become a positive pair so their representations should be close. A negative sample can be introduced by picking any other sample from the dataset, which hopefully isn't a bird but still might be. Then a contrastive loss would say the two augmented versions of the same image should be close to each other in latent space, while the negative version should be far from both these images. Liam.schoneveld (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hilo

[edit]

Hilo Hilo 209.35.174.215 (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Reliability of using medium as a source

[edit]

The article lists a medium article as a source. Medium is a blog and there is no peer review which implies rigor cannot be assumed by default. FYI I don't doubt or dispute the rigor of https://medium.com/@whats-ai the author who I understand is an expert on the subject, only that I think as a policy Wikipedia should have more rigorous sourcing on highly technical articles.

Thoughts? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply