Where it washes out: influence functions on 200-class Tiny ImageNet

The CIFAR and STL-10 pieces found that the loss-landscape grooves recover a coarse animate/inanimate split — cleanly, at ten classes. This piece pushes to Tiny ImageNet: 200 classes, 100k images, a real WordNet taxonomy, same 64px VQ-token recipe, and asks where the finding breaks. It breaks at the clustering step, and interestingly not at the level of the underlying structure:

At 200 classes the animate/inanimate abstraction survives in the mean loss-coupling — animals couple, and anti-couple to artifacts — but the per-example signal is too weak, and "artifact" too heterogeneous, for unsupervised clustering to carve it out.

§1Setup

Same pipeline as STL, scaled to 200 classes: a VQ-VAE (1024 codes) turns each 64×64 image into a 16×16 = 256-code grid, and a token-AR transformer trains on the 100k training images with labels ignored (class-agnostic generative training). BIF probes are 1,000 labelled validation images, 5 per class across all 200. Super-categories are derived from each class's WordNet id (animal / artifact / food / plant / structure / other).

data
Tiny ImageNet — 200 WordNet classes, 100k train (labels ignored), 10k val (probes)
tokeniser
VQ-VAE f=4, codebook 1024, 64×64 → 256 codes
model
d256 · 6 layers · 8 heads, 256 tokens, vocab 1024, tied embeddings
BIF
SGLD, 8 chains × 1,200 draws, per-checkpoint ε, two independent runs, block-centred; 1,000 probes across 200 classes
artefacts
arcadia-impact/small-abstraction-test-{logs, mnist-ar} on HF; VQ under tin-vq/
Tiny ImageNet originals and VQ reconstructions at 64px.
Fig. 1 · VQ reconstructions (64px). 200-class Tiny ImageNet is far more varied than CIFAR or STL; a 1024-code book at f=4 keeps scene gist but loses fine detail.
Free samples from the 200-class model at epochs 5 and 30 — painterly textures and scenes, less object-coherent than STL.
Fig. 2 · Free rollouts. With 200 heterogeneous classes and a lossy tokeniser, samples are more texture-and-scene than clean objects.

§2Clustering fails — but the signal is still there

The headline pair of panels. Left: every unsupervised recovery of the semantic structure — six-way super-category, two-way animal-vs-rest — sits at chance, indistinguishable from clustering the raw pixels. Right: yet the class-mean BIF coupling is clearly structured — animal–animal pairs couple positively, animal–non-animal pairs anti-couple, and non-animal pairs sit in between. The abstraction is present in the averages; it is simply too weak per-example to survive a hard partition of 1,000 points into groups.

Left: BIF 6-way, BIF animal, and pixel animal clustering all near ARI 0. Right: class-mean coupling animal-animal +0.042, other-other +0.017, animal-other -0.035.
Fig. 3 · Left: hard clustering vs the semantic labels is at chance at 200 classes (same as pixels). Right: the class-mean loss coupling still carries the animate/inanimate distinction — animals couple (+0.042) and anti-couple to non-animals (−0.035). Graded class similarity tracks WordNet at Spearman 0.08 (p ≪ 0.001).

§3The hierarchy, top to bottom

Because 200 classes need far more clusters than a left-to-right alluvial can show, here the hierarchy runs vertically — k grows as you scroll down, from 2 at the top to 64 at the bottom, nodes coloured by WordNet super-category. Hover any node to see its member images; click to pin, click away or Esc to dismiss. The story is legible in the colours: at the top there is no clean animal/artifact split (it's one artifact-dominated mass), but as k grows, green animal clusters visibly coalesce out of the teal — the animate structure is there, emerging only at fine granularity, never as a clean top-level cut. Hovering the green nodes confirms they are genuinely animals; hovering the mixed nodes shows the heterogeneity that defeats the clustering.

k = 2 · ARI(fine) 0.00 k = 4 · ARI(fine) 0.00 k = 8 · ARI(fine) 0.00 k = 16 · ARI(fine) 0.01 k = 32 · ARI(fine) 0.01 k = 64 · ARI(fine) 0.01 animal artifact food plant structure other hover a node for images · click to pin
Fig. 4 · Giant vertical cluster hierarchy of the 200-class BIF, k = 2…64 (ARI vs fine class under each level — chance throughout). Nodes coloured by WordNet super-category. Green (animal) clusters coalesce at fine k without ever forming a clean coarse split. Hover for member images.

§4What this adds to the thread

Read across the four pieces, there's a clean arc. On MNIST the BIF recovers the ten digit classes outright. On CIFAR and STL — ten classes, one clean binary semantic axis (animal/vehicle) — it recovers that coarse axis unsupervised, even from a class-blind model. On 200-class Tiny ImageNet the same coarse axis is still present in the loss geometry (animals couple, anti-couple to artifacts; similarity tracks WordNet) but is no longer recoverable by hard clustering — the semantic space is too large and too unbalanced, and "artifact" is not one thing. So the honest boundary of the method: it reads out coarse abstractions when there are few of them and they partition cleanly; at many-class, heterogeneous scale the abstraction is measurable in aggregate but not separable. The natural next moves are graded rather than partition-based (regress BIF similarity on a semantic embedding), or a richer tokeniser so the finer structure the VQ currently discards has a chance to appear.

Code · small-abstraction-test (token-AR pipeline, block-centred SGLD estimator, vertical interactive hierarchy). Note: an initial run hit a probe-selection bug that silently used only 10 of the 200 classes; caught in analysis and re-run with all 200 — the story here is the corrected run.
Artefacts · HF small-abstraction-test-logs (SGLD traces, BIF matrices, checkpoints) · VQ under tin-vq/.
Compute · 1× H100 ≈ 3.5 h ≈ $12 (VQ + AR train + three gated BIF cells at 8×1,200 draws over 1,000 probes, incl. the corrected re-run). Pod deleted after verified upload.