There exists at least one point in HP1 at which the loss is less than at all points in HP2.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
What would count as true or false
Evaluate the claim as a mathematical conclusion in the 2006 source paper, where HP1 and HP2 are the regions or sets it defines. TRUE: under the paper's stated assumptions and its definition of the loss (negative log-likelihood, if that is the loss the paper uses), the existence of at least one point in HP1 with loss lower than at every point in HP2 follows validly. MOSTLY TRUE: the conclusion is valid, but the proposition misnames a minor detail (e.g., the loss is a closely related one rather than exactly the negative log-likelihood). MOSTLY FALSE: the conclusion holds only under further assumptions the paper does not state, or holds for a weaker statement (e.g., less than or equal, or less than some but not all points in HP2). FALSE: the reasoning is invalid or a counterexample within the paper's setting is shown.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (3)
-
E1 Factor Graphs for Relational Regression New York University, Department of Computer Science (PhD dissertation by Sumit Prakash Chopra) · January 2009 Own record
“Let the two half planes EC + m < EI and EC + m ≥ EI be denoted by HP1 and HP2 respectively.”
-
E2 Factor Graphs for Relational Regression New York University, Department of Computer Science (PhD dissertation by Sumit Prakash Chopra) · January 2009 Own record
“Lnll(W, Y i, X i) = E(W, Y i, X i) + Fβ(W, Y, X i).”
-
E3 Wake-Sleep Energy Based Models for Continual Learning CVF Open Access (CVPR 2024 Workshops, CLVision) · 2024
“Therefore it can be concluded that there exists at least one point in P1 at which the loss is less than at all points in P2.”
Reasoning
E2 defines HP1 (EC + m < EI) and HP2 (EC + m ≥ EI), and E3 gives the formula for the negative log-likelihood loss in a 2009 dissertation. Both come from a 2009 dissertation that is not independent of the subject, and neither shows the argument that leads to the conclusion. E4 is an independent paper that restates the same conclusion for its own regions P1 and P2. It does not show the derivation or the assumptions it depends on, or whether those assumptions hold for the negative log-likelihood loss. The evidence therefore does not establish whether the conclusion follows validly under the 2006 paper's assumptions, as the criteria require.
Cite this claim
Yann LeCun, “There exists at least one point in HP1 at which the loss is less than at all points in HP2.” (said 2006). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_ea7fbc4d08d2, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_ea7fbc4d08d2
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Yann LeCun
-
Mostly true
“For starters, transformers are equivariant to permutations.”
Transformers are equivariant to permutations, as ConvNets are equivariant to translations.
-
Mostly true
“If it were the case, we would have AI systems that could teach themselves to drive a car in 20 hours of practice, like any 17 year-old.”
-
Mostly true
“The architecture is good, the architecture of the encoder is good, but the fact that you train the system to reconstruct images does not lead it to produce to long, good generic features of images.”
-
Mostly true
“LLMs can do none of those or they can only do them in a very primitive way and they don’t really understand the physical world.”
-
Mostly true
“No, there’s one thing that autoregressive LLMs or that LLMs in general, not just the autoregressive one, but including the bird style bidirectional ones, are exploiting and its self supervised…”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.