Cited by 28Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Contrasting Contrastive Self-Supervised Representation Learning Pipelines

Open access
Kotar, Klemen, Ilharco, Gabriel, Schmidt, Ludwig, Ehsani, Kiana, Mottaghi, Roozbeh·2021·2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

Abstract

In the past few years, we have witnessed remarkable breakthroughs in self-supervised representation learning. Despite the success and adoption of representations learned through this paradigm, much is yet to be understood about how different training methods and datasets influence performance on downstream tasks. In this paper, we analyze contrastive approaches as one of the most successful and popular variants of self-supervised representation learning. We perform this analysis from the perspective of the training algorithms, pre-training datasets and end tasks. We examine over 700 training experiments including 30 encoders, 4 pre-training datasets and 20 diverse downstream tasks. Our experiments address various questions regarding the performance of self-supervised models compared to their supervised counterparts, current benchmarks used for evaluation, and the effect of the pre-training data on end task performance. Our Visual Representation Benchmark (ViRB) is available at: https://github.com/allenai/virb.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/iccv48922.2021.00980

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Performance on the ImageNet and downstream datasets is not always consistent due to the inconstancy of data distribution, data domain, and task objective.

    “However, recent research [112], [113] suggested that performance on the ImageNet and downstream datasets is not always consistent due to the inconstancy of data distribution, data domain, and task objective.”

    From Large-Scale Unsupervised Semantic Segmentation (2023) · cites this paper as [113]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kotar, K., Ilharco, G., Schmidt, L., Ehsani, K., & Mottaghi, R.
Affiliations
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2021-10
Pages
9929-9939
OpenAlex
W3139236157
Cited by
28
References
74
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.77
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
pre-training dataset, downstream task performance, encoder comparison, benchmark evaluation

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