Cited by 660Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques

Dense Contrastive Learning for Self-Supervised Visual Pre-Training

Wang, Xinlong, Zhang, Rufeng, Shen, Chunhua, Kong, Tao, Li, Lei·2021·2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

To date, most existing self-supervised learning methods are designed and optimized for image classification. These pre-trained models can be sub-optimal for dense prediction tasks due to the discrepancy between image-level prediction and pixel-level prediction. To fill this gap, we aim to design an effective, dense self-supervised learning method that directly works at the level of pixels (or local features) by taking into account the correspondence between local features. We present dense contrastive learning (DenseCL), which implements self-supervised learning by optimizing a pairwise contrastive (dis)similarity loss at the pixel level between two views of input images.Compared to the baseline method MoCo-v2, our method introduces negligible computation overhead (only <1% slower), but demonstrates consistently superior performance when transferring to downstream dense prediction tasks including object detection, semantic segmentation and instance segmentation; and outperforms the state-of-the-art methods by a large margin. Specifically, over the strong MoCo-v2 baseline, our method achieves significant improvements of 2.0% AP on PASCAL VOC object detection, 1.1% AP on COCO object detection, 0.9% AP on COCO instance segmentation, 3.0% mIoU on PASCAL VOC semantic segmentation and 1.8% mIoU on Cityscapes semantic segmentation.Code and models are available at: https://git.io/DenseCL

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.00304

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pixel-level SSL methods ignore the category-related representation ability required by the LUSS task.

    “Despite the good performance for transfer learning, these methods ignore the category-related representation ability required by the LUSS task.”

    From Large-Scale Unsupervised Semantic Segmentation (2023) · cites this paper as [95]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, X., Zhang, R., Shen, C., Kong, T., & Li, L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Tongji University (CN)
  • ByteDance (China) (CN)
Venue
2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2021-06
Pages
3023-3032
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3168822201
Cited by
660
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 126 · 2024: 130 · 2023: 188 · 2022: 132 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 2
FWCI
55.80
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Keywords
dense prediction, object detection, semantic segmentation, instance segmentation, MoCo v2

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review