Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 23, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
VICReg prevents collapse with a hinge on the standard deviation of each embedding dimension, and its authors argue from the gradient that a hinge on the variance would fail. To our knowledge, this claim has not been tested experimentally. We test it in a controlled setting (ResNet-18, CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100), changing only the hinge and sweeping its weight $μ$ over five orders of magnitude. At the default weight ($μ= 1$), the two hinges reach the same linear-probe accuracy on CIFAR-10 (about 89.5%). Both collapse below a threshold weight, but the standard-deviation hinge's threshold is 35-130$\times$ lower. CIFAR-100 shows a consistent gap. In training, the variance hinge's gradient fades as the feature variance shrinks, while the standard-deviation hinge's does not until that variance is very small. The standard-deviation hinge therefore buys a safety margin: it keeps training at weights far below the point where the variance hinge collapses.