The DOI matches its DataCite record; 139 of the 139 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 12 of the 40 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision
Open accessAbstract
The recent breakthroughs in natural language processing for model pretraining on large quantities of data have opened the way for similar foundation models in computer vision. These models could greatly simplify the use of images in any system by producing all-purpose visual features, i.e., features that work across image distributions and tasks without finetuning. This work shows that existing pretraining methods, especially self-supervised methods, can produce such features if trained on enough curated data from diverse sources. We revisit existing approaches and combine different techniques to scale our pretraining in terms of data and model size. Most of the technical contributions aim at accelerating and stabilizing the training at scale. In terms of data, we propose an automatic pipeline to build a dedicated, diverse, and curated image dataset instead of uncurated data, as typically done in the self-supervised literature. In terms of models, we train a ViT model (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020) with 1B parameters and distill it into a series of smaller models that surpass the best available all-purpose features, OpenCLIP (Ilharco et al., 2021) on most of the benchmarks at image and pixel levels.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
DINOv2 shows that self-supervised pretraining on a curated 142M-image dataset can produce general-purpose visual features competitive with weakly supervised models. Its ViT-g/14 backbone and distilled smaller variants perform strongly on image and pixel tasks without task-specific fine-tuning.
Key findings
- On ImageNet-1k linear probing, DINOv2 ViT-g/14 reaches 86.5% top-1, exceeding OpenCLIP ViT-G/14 (86.2%) and EVA-CLIP ViT-g/14 (86.4%), and improving over iBOT ViT-L/16 (82.3%) by 4.2 points; kNN is 83.5%, ReaL 89.6%, and V2 78.4%.
- Dense and retrieval tasks also improve: ViT-g/14 with multiscale linear segmentation gets 53.0 mIoU on ADE20k, 81.0 on Cityscapes, and 86.2 on Pascal VOC; depth DPT RMSE is 0.279 on NYUd versus OpenCLIP’s 0.414; retrieval reaches 52.3 mAP on Oxford-Hard and 82.6 mAP on Paris-Hard.
- Ablations show the KoLeo regularizer raises Oxford-M retrieval from 55.6 to 63.9 mAP, masked image modeling raises ADE-20k segmentation from 44.2 to 47.1 mIoU, and distillation from ViT-g improves ViT-L over scratch on all 12 benchmarks.
- Curated LVD-142M beats uncurated data on most benchmarks (e.g., INet-1k 85.8 vs 83.3, iNat2018 82.3 vs 68.0, iNat2021 86.4 vs 76.4) and beats ImageNet-22k on all but ImageNet-1k.
Methods
- Data: an automatic pipeline starts from 1.2B unique web images, applies deduplication, and retrieves images using self-supervised ViT-H/16 embeddings with cosine similarity, k-means, and Faiss, producing LVD-142M (142M images) in under two days on 20 nodes with 8 V100-32GB GPUs.
- Training: discriminative self-supervised learning combines DINO image-level and iBOT patch-level objectives with Sinkhorn-Knopp centering, a KoLeo regularizer, separate projection heads, and a short 518×518 high-resolution phase; ViT-g/14 has 1.1B parameters, with efficiency from FlashAttention, sequence packing, stochastic depth, and FSDP, and smaller models distilled from ViT-g.
- Evaluation: frozen features are assessed with linear probes and kNN on classification, segmentation, depth, retrieval, video, and fairness benchmarks, compared against self-supervised and weakly supervised baselines.
Limitations
- The paper states fairness gaps: on Dollar Street, Africa performance is 25.7% below Europe and high-income households are 31.7% above low-income; harmful label associations were rare, but a more thorough bias evaluation may reveal flaws.
- The paper states its carbon estimate covers only GPU electricity and excludes manufacturing and disposal; the whole project is estimated at 0.5k–1k tCO2eq, with one ViT-g pretraining at 3.7 tCO2eq.
- The text makes evident that evaluation centers on frozen linear probes and curated benchmarks, and the data pipeline retrieves from curated datasets, so coverage may be shaped by those sources; some tasks where text supervision helps (e.g., SUN, Cars) still lag OpenCLIP.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
63 Own result · 24 Own interpretation · 18 No basis given · 13 Sources not found · 10 Own method · 5 Not checked yet · 4 Supported · 4 Partly supported · 3 No full text of the sources · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“This leads to approximately 50% reduction in communication costs compared to the float32 gradient all-reduce operation used in DistributedDataParallel (DDP), which is used in other self-supervised pretraining methods (Caron et al., 2021;Zhou et al., 2022a).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Fully-Sharded Data Parallel (FSDP).
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Caron et al., 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The compute-requirements section (p. 9) reports DINO training time and GPU memory, not communication costs. Searches for FSDP, DistributedDataParallel, float32 gradient all-reduce, and the claimed 50% reduction found no passage in our copy establishing either the comparison or DDP's use in this method. (LLM, conf=0.75)
- Not matchedcites Zhou et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Some efforts on scaling these approaches beyond ImageNet-1k have been attempted (Caron et al., 2019;Goyal et al., 2021;2022a), but they focused on uncurated datasets, which typically lead to a significant drop in the quality of the features.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Caron et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 1) says previous work using non-curated raw data reported degraded feature quality. It does not establish that the drop is typically significant; the Introduction (p. 2) also reports that this paper’s approach surpassed features trained without labels on curated datasets. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites Goyal et al., 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.4 (p. 7) reports a significant drop for features from uncurated pretraining when they are frozen and evaluated on ImageNet, compared with features pretrained on curated, ImageNet-aligned data. That specific result does not establish that uncurated datasets typically reduce feature quality: the Introduction (p. 2) reports better performance than an ImageNet-supervised model on several downstream tasks. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites Goyal et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This saves memory and compute in proportion approximately equal to the drop rate, thanks to specific fused kernels.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Efficient stochastic depth.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Huang et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3 (p. 6) says bypassing ResBlocks avoids forward-backward computation and reports approximately 25% training-time savings under its linear-decay setting; Section 4 (p. 10) reports a corresponding measured speedup. The cited paper does not establish proportional memory savings or attribute the savings to fused kernels, so those parts of the citing sentence are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a consequence, the training procedure scales more efficiently than DDP with float16 autocast when scaling the number of GPU nodes.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Fully-Sharded Data Parallel (FSDP).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, Pytorch-FSDP mixed-precision is superior to DDP with autocast in virtually all cases we encountered.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Fully-Sharded Data Parallel (FSDP).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Our experiments did not show significant differences in final accuracy, and our ViT-g backbone counts 1.1B parameters.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Fast and memory-efficient attention.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zhai et al., 2022 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“At scale, we observed that the opposite is true, and we therefore use two separate heads in all our experiments.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 4 Discriminative Self-supervised Pre-training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhou et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this work, a naive clustering approach works reasonably well to resolve this issue.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The KoLeo loss term improves nearest-neighbor search tasks (e.g.retrieval), and the MIM loss improves patch-level tasks (e.g.segmentation).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.2 Pretraining Data Source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the size of models grow, training on LVD-142M becomes more beneficial than training on ImageNet-22k.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.3 Model Size and Data
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
- It may state two separate claims as one. 36
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Our version is on par with or better than the original on all cases considered, while covering more use-cases and hardware.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Fast and memory-efficient attention.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dao et al., 2022 source
The source identifies and describes the original FlashAttention in the Introduction (§1). The citing authors’ comparison of their own version with that original—including performance, use-cases, and hardware—is their own claim, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Of particular interest, Goyal et al. (2021) have also shown that these methods benefit from scaling in model size given enough pretrained data.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Scaling self-supervised pretraining.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Goyal et al., 2021 source
In §4.1 (p. 4), the authors report that increasing model capacity has a greater effect for self-supervised pretrained models than for models trained from scratch, and confirm the gain with uncurated pretraining data. The Related Work (§2, p. 2) explains why large architectures matter for discriminative self-supervised learning on large datasets. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“These approaches are conceptually closer to pretext tasks such as language modeling and can capture information at the image and pixel level (Caron et al., 2021).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Caron et al., 2021 source
The Introduction (p. 1) compares self-supervised vision pretraining with language-modeling pretext tasks. It reports image-classification performance, while §4.2.2 (p. 7) shows that the learned features retain spatial information and support segmentation, consistent with capturing information at both the image and pixel level. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Additionally, the features output by self-supervised models have been shown to exhibit various useful properties, and have enabled enabled a wide variety of applications (Amir et al., 2022;Tumanyan et al., 2022;Ofri-Amar et al., 2023;Hamilton et al., 2022).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Amir et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Tumanyan et al., 2022 source
The Introduction (p. 1) describes useful properties of self-supervised DINO-ViT features and lists applications including image retrieval, object segmentation, and copy detection. The Conclusions (p. 8) add semantic appearance transfer as an application of those features. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites Ofri-Amar et al., 2023 source
The Introduction (p. 2) describes features from a self-supervised DINO-ViT as effective visual descriptors that capture localized semantic information and underpin the paper’s image-alignment method. The DINO-ViT Features section (p. 3) also describes their use across applications including segmentation, object discovery, and transfer learning. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Patterson et al. (2021) propose a methodology to report an estimation of the carbon emitted during the training of a model based on the specifics of the data center and its power grid.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Patterson et al. (2021) source
Section 2.5 (p. 5) gives formulas for estimating training energy use and CO₂e emissions using datacenter PUE and emissions per kWh. It also explains how to obtain the datacenter’s emissions figure or estimate the regional energy mix, supporting the claim that the methodology accounts for the datacenter and its power grid. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This methodology was used in previous work in natural language processing (Strubell et al., 2019;Touvron et al., 2023) to establish an apple-to-apple comparison between pretraining schemes.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Strubell et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Partly supportedcites Touvron et al., 2023 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 6, p. 10, applies the same carbon-emissions formula to LLaMA, OPT, and BLOOM for a fair comparison, using a common data-center assumption. It identifies the formula as following Wu et al. (2022), however, and does not establish that it used Patterson et al. (2021)'s methodology. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“This reduces redundancy and increases diversity among images.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Data sources.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pizzi et al., 2022 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The whole processing is distributed on a compute cluster of 20 nodes equipped with 8 V100-32GB GPUs and takes less than two days to produce the LVD-142M dataset.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Self-supervised image retrieval.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“With the same hardware, compared to the iBOT implementation, the DINOv2 code runs around 2× faster using only 1/3 of the memory.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 5 Efficient implementation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhou et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In terms of models, we train a ViT model (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) with 1B parameters and distill it into a series of smaller models that surpass the best available general-purpose features, OpenCLIP (Ilharco et al., 2021) on most of the benchmarks at image and pixel levels.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ilharco et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our family of models drastically improves over the previous state of the art in self-supervised learning and reaches performance comparable with weaklysupervised features.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We choose N = 4 as it provides a good tradeoff in that sense.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Self-supervised image retrieval.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These improvements make our approach around 2× faster and require 3× less memory than similar discriminative self-supervised methods, allowing us to leverage longer training with larger batch sizes.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, their features require supervised finetuning, while our features perform well out of the box.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Intra-image self-supervised training.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites He et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only LayerScale and Stochastic Depth incur a performance drop in linear probing but significantly improve the training stability in our experience.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.1 Improved Training Recipe
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also see that training on our curated data increases the performances on domains that are not used for the curation process (INaturalist 2018, 2021 and Places205), proving that scale and diversity can benefit unseen domains.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.2 Pretraining Data Source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generally, we observe that each component improves the performance on either k-NN or linear probing and even both in most cases.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.1 Improved Training Recipe
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This term is critical for dense prediction tasks, leading to almost 3% performance improvement.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.4 Loss Components
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhou et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is true both when using models at resolution 224 and 448.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, a ViT-g trained on LVD-142M matches the performance on ImageNet-1k of a model trained on ImageNet-22k while significantly outperforming it on the other benchmarks.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.3 Model Size and Data
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, training at high resolution for only 10k iterations at the end of the training is almost as good and only requiring a fraction of the compute.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.6 Impact of Resolution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For comparison, retraining an OpenCLIP ViT-L or OpenCLIP ViT-G would require 22.4 MWh and 118.9 MWh, respectively, if run in the same data center.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This carbon footprint represents in the order of 200k GPU-days.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our models show very good performance on all datasets and for all setups.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Semantic segmentation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though these benchmarks favor text-guided pretraining, our features are still competitive with OpenCLIP on most classification benchmarks, with the exception of a few datasets, especially SUN (-5.3%) and Cars (-4.7%).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.2 Additional Image and Video classification Benchmarks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 12 transfer classification benchmarks favor text-guided pretraining.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, we estimate the footprint of the whole project to be between 0.5k and 1k tCO 2 eq using the same grid as presented above 3 .”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While not perfect, the linear segmentation model using our DINOv2 backbone produces good results and behaves much better than the OpenCLIP one under this evaluation setup.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Semantic Segmentation and Depth Estimation.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We show that a ViT-L model distilled from a frozen ViT-g outperforms a the same model trained from scratch on all benchmarks, sometimes even outperforming the distillation target.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 10 Future work and Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also observe that the model is robust to style (image versus drawing), and to large variation of poses (see the elephant).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Out-of-distribution generalization.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Our model is slightly fairer across regions and incomes than the SEERv2 model and significantly better than the supervised baseline reported by Goyal et al. (2022a).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 8.1 Geographical Fairness
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Goyal et al. (2022a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“first, our unsupervised foreground / background detector, based on detecting the highest variance direction, performs very well and is capable of delineating the boundary of the main object in the picture.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Out-of-distribution generalization.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the other components correspond to”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Out-of-distribution generalization.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, a single pre-training of a ViT-g model (22k GPU-hours) emits 3.7 tons of CO 2 eq, while a finetuning on ImageNet-1k (1k GPU-hours) emits 0.2 tons.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our pipeline does not require any metadata or text and directly works with images, as shown in Fig. 3.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 3 Data Processing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Increasing image resolution is key to pixellevel downstream tasks such as segmentation or detection, where small objects disappear at low resolutions.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 4 Discriminative Self-supervised Pre-training
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We evaluate the quality of features by training a simple classifier over a frozen backbone, and do not perform finetuning of the backbone weights.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, we also see that the performance increase on the alternative test sets is larger for our method, indicating stronger generalization.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is explained by the lack of control over the data quality and diversity, which are essential to produce good features.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike these works, we use no pretrained encoders, metadata nor supervision to filter images and leverage visual similarity between images.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Automatic data curation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, these image encoders require aligned text-image corpora and hence, do not offer the flexibility of their text counterparts, that is, to learn from raw data alone.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also remove near-duplicates of images contained in the test or validation set of any benchmark used in this work.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Data sources.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The KoLeo regularizer derives from the Kozachenko-Leonenko differential entropy estimator (see Beirlant et al. (1997); Delattre & Fournier (2017)) and encourages a uniform span of the features within a batch.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 4 Discriminative Self-supervised Pre-training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Beirlant et al. (1997)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Delattre & Fournier (2017) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, training at high resolution is time and memory demanding, and instead, we increase the resolution of images to 518 × 518 during a short period at the end of pretraining.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 4 Discriminative Self-supervised Pre-training
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For all models, we run the linear evaluation using our code, after making sure that our numbers match those reported in technical reports and papers.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This form of text-guided pretraining limits the information that can be retained about the image since captions only approximate the rich information in images, and complex pixel-level information may not surface with this supervision.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Captions only approximate the rich information in images, and complex pixel-level information may not surface with text supervision.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As DINOv2 leads to features that are strong in both the linear and finetuning settings, a strong property of our approach is that finetuning is optional.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These methods provide performant frozen features on standard benchmarks like ImageNet (Russakovsky et al., 2015), but they are hard to scale to larger model sizes (Chen et al., 2021).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Discriminative self-supervised learning.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Russakovsky et al., 2015 source
- Not matchedcites Chen et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MLP heads gradients are reduced in float32 to avoid training instabilities”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Fully-Sharded Data Parallel (FSDP).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Following previous work, we use a linear model for simplicity, ensuring a reproducible evaluation, despite the fact that classes may not be linearly separable.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to report this additional validation performance, for all models, we run the evaluation with our code.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ruan et al. (2023) recommend to replace the teacher softmax-centering step of DINO and iBot by the Sinkhorn-Knopp (SK) batch normalization of SwAV (Caron et al., 2020).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 4 Discriminative Self-supervised Pre-training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ruan et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked yetcites Caron et al., 2020 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“We can attribute the strong performance of the DINOv2 family of models to several factors: i) an improved training recipe with better hyperparameters and regularization (Table 1), ii) a larger model scale with improved results regardless of the data used for training (Fig. 4), iii) a larger dataset (Fig. 4) and iv) the distillation process that makes smaller models benefit from the performance of”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 10 Future work and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fig. 4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This exhibits the ability of our model to transfer across domains and understand relations between similar parts of different objects.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 10 Future work and Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is interesting to see that our features perform well across task granularities, both at the category-level and instance-level.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.3 Instance Recognition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We can attribute the strong performance of the DINOv2 family of models to several factors: i) an improved training recipe with better hyperparameters and regularization (Table 1), ii) a larger model scale with improved results regardless of the data used for training (Fig. 4), iii) a larger dataset (Fig. 4) and iv) the distillation process that makes smaller models benefit from the performance of”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 10 Future work and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Table 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This estimate only considers the GPUs' electricity consumption and ignores other emissions, such as their manufacturing and disposal.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We can attribute the strong performance of the DINOv2 family of models to several factors: i) an improved training recipe with better hyperparameters and regularization (Table 1), ii) a larger model scale with improved results regardless of the data used for training (Fig. 4), iii) a larger dataset (Fig. 4) and iv) the distillation process that makes smaller models benefit from the performance of”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 10 Future work and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fig. 5
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Captions only approximate the rich information in images, and complex pixel-level information may not surface with text supervision.
“This form of text-guided pretraining limits the information that can be retained about the image since captions only approximate the rich information in images, and complex pixel-level information may not surface with this supervision.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most SSL methods were developed using ImageNet-1k validation performance as a debugging signal.
“Because most SSL methods were developped using ImageNet-1k validation performance as a debugging signal, we also report the top-1 accuracy on ImageNet-ReaL and ImageNet-V2.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 12 transfer classification benchmarks favor text-guided pretraining.
“Even though these benchmarks favor text-guided pretraining, our features are still competitive with OpenCLIP on most classification benchmarks, with the exception of a few datasets, especially SUN (-5.3%) and Cars (-4.7%).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Non-Human and Crime meta-categories are harmful.
“Non-Human and Crime are considered harmful.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Self-reported gender, skin tone, and age labels are accurate.
“images of people of different gender, skin tone, and age (all self-reported).”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Foundation Models (FMs) [23, 35, 37] - generic models trained on web-scale datasets - have demonstrated remarkable zero-shot performance and can be quickly adapted to various downstream tasks with few additional tuning cost.”
From Towards More General Video-based Deepfake Detection through Facial Component Guided Adaptation for Foundation Model (2024) · cites this paper as [35]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Previous works, however, tend to focus on understanding evaluation using probe-based evaluation or visual question answering tasks after aligning with a large-language model.”
From V-JEPA 2: Self-Supervised Video Models Enable Understanding, Prediction and Planning (2025) · cites this paper as Oquab et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“having high quality data outweighs the quantity of data”
From Genie: Generative Interactive Environments (2024) · cites this paper as Oquab et al. (2023)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A major advantage of this strategy is that the DINO model, pretrained on ImageNet, has been exposed to a very diverse set of natural images, which allows the model to develop a more sophisticated understanding of image structure than would be possible through studying astronomical images alone.”
From A Semi-Supervised Learning Method for the Identification of Bad Exposures in Large Imaging Surveys (2026) · cites this paper as Oquab et al. 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The semantic awareness of DINOv2 is also especially useful in creating a global coherence to evaluate whether scenes make sense wholistically.”
From MTReD: 3D Reconstruction Dataset for Fly-over Videos of Maritime Domain (2025) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“While DINOv2 was not explicitly trained for the medical domain, it has shown strong generalization, making it effective for general tasks, including those in medical imaging.”
From ConfIC-RCA: Statistically Grounded Efficient Estimation of Segmentation Quality (2025) · cites this paper as [54]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Because uncurated and unbalanced data can hinder model performance (Assran et al., 2022; Oquab et al., 2023), we filter YT1B by adapting an existing retrieval-based curation pipeline to handle videos.”
From V-JEPA 2: Self-Supervised Video Models Enable Understanding, Prediction and Planning (2025) · cites this paper as Oquab et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The latter is a much larger (300 million parameters) Vision Transformer21 trained at 0.5 mpp resolution on over 100,000 WSIs from 22 major tissue types using self-distillation and masked modeling22.”
From Generating dermatopathology reports from gigapixel whole slide images with HistoGPT (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Similar to Oquab et al. (2023), we ensure that none of the videos from the target validation sets are contained in the initial, uncurated data pool.”
From V-JEPA 2: Self-Supervised Video Models Enable Understanding, Prediction and Planning (2025) · cites this paper as Oquab et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The OpenVLA model architecture consists of a fused vision backbone that combines the SigLIP [9] and DinoV2 [25] encoders.”
From OpenVLA: An Open-Source Vision-Language-Action Model (2024) · cites this paper as [25]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Models such as DINOv2 [7], Vision Transformers (ViT) [8], and Swin Transformers [9] have demonstrated outstanding transfer learning performance across a wide range of domains, often achieving state-of-the-art results with only minimal fine-tuning.”
From Trustworthy Celestial Eye: Calibrated and Robust Planetary Classification via Self-Supervised Vision Transformers (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Oquab et al. [7] proposed DINOv2, a self-supervised vision foundation model trained on 142 million curated natural images that demonstrates strong transfer learning capabilities across various downstream tasks.”
From Trustworthy Celestial Eye: Calibrated and Robust Planetary Classification via Self-Supervised Vision Transformers (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“we propose that a DINOv2 [8] based perception score be used, and argue that as DINOv2 is trained using internet-scale levels of data, additional training data is not required.”
From MTReD: 3D Reconstruction Dataset for Fly-over Videos of Maritime Domain (2025) · cites this paper as [8]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“but the model's effectiveness on scientific imaging domains with distinct statistical properties remains underexplored.”
From Trustworthy Celestial Eye: Calibrated and Robust Planetary Classification via Self-Supervised Vision Transformers (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“When compared to LPIPS, it demonstrates superior ability in evaluating scene completion while retaining equal sensitivity to scene accuracy”
From MTReD: 3D Reconstruction Dataset for Fly-over Videos of Maritime Domain (2025) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“significantly better on high-income households than low-income ones, with a difference of 31.7%.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Income buckets Regions
Reported 31.7 · recomputed 23.1
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“However, we still observe a significant difference between regions, particularly in Africa, where our model performance drops by 25.7% compared to Europe.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 8.1 Geographical Fairness
Reported 25.7 · recomputed 15.7
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Automatic data curation.
“Unlike these works, we use no pretrained encoders, metadata nor supervision to filter images and leverage visual similarity between images.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Self-supervised image retrieval.
“In order to do this, we first compute an image embedding using a self-supervised ViT-H/16 network pretrained on ImageNet-22k, and use cosine-similarity as a distance measure between images.”
Citations
Cites
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database
Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., & Fei-Fei, L. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206848 · Cited by 65,333
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325
An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale
Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.11929 · Cited by 47,472
ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge
Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., et al. (2015) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y · Cited by 39,380 · cited 2×
“However, despite their potential to learn general-purpose features, most of the advances in self-supervised learning were made in the context of pretraining on a small curated dataset, ImageNet-1k (Russakovsky et al., 2015).”
BackgroundMethodLearning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images
Krizhevsky, A. (2024) · doi:10.57702/zp44cu3g · Cited by 23,889
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
Encoder-Decoder with Atrous Separable Convolution for Semantic Image Segmentation
Chen, L.-C., Zhu, Y., Papandreou, G., Schroff, F., & Adam, H. (2018) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01234-2_49 · Cited by 20,054
The pascal visual object classes (VOC) challenge
Everingham, M., Van Gool, L., Williams, C. K. I., Winn, J., & Zisserman, A. (2010) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-009-0275-4 · Cited by 19,599
Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision
Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00020 · Cited by 15,293
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [62]62. Dan Hendrycks, Kevin Zhao, Steven Basart, Jacob Steinhardt, and Dawn Song. Natural adversarial exam- ples. In CVPR, 2021b.
- [113]113. Hugo Touvron, Andrea Vedaldi, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. Fixing the train-test resolution discrep- ancy. In NeurIPS, 2019.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Towards a general-purpose foundation model for computational pathology
Chen, R. J., Ding, T., Lu, M. Y., Williamson, D. F. K., Jaume, G., Song, A. H., Chen, B., Zhang, A., Shao, D., Shaban, M., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-02857-3 · Cited by 1,560
Depth Anything: Unleashing the Power of Large-Scale Unlabeled Data
Yang, L., Kang, B., Huang, Z., Xu, X., Feng, J., & Zhao, H. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00987 · Cited by 1,296
“Furthermore, to strengthen the teacher model T learned from these labeled images, we adopt the DINOv2 [42] pre-trained weights to initialize our encoder.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA whole-slide foundation model for digital pathology from real-world data
Xu, H., Usuyama, N., Bagga, J., Zhang, S., Rao, R., Naumann, T., Wong, C., Gero, Z., González, J., Gu, Y., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07441-w · Cited by 921
“Prov-GigaPath tile encoder used the ViT model architecture with standard DINOv2 settings 24 .”
InfluentialSelf-citationEnd-to-End Autonomous Driving: Challenges and Frontiers
Chen, L., Wu, P., Chitta, K., Jaeger, B., Geiger, A., & Li, H. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2024.3435937 · Cited by 843
“Recent advancements in foundation models in both language [166], [167], [274] and vision [273], [275], [276] have proved that large-scale data and model capacity can unleash the immense potential of AI in high-level reasoning tasks.”
BackgroundA foundation model for clinical-grade computational pathology and rare cancers detection
Vorontsov, E., Bozkurt, A., Casson, A., Shaikovski, G., Zelechowski, M., Severson, K., Zimmermann, E., Hall, J., Tenenholtz, N., Fusi, N., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03141-0 · Cited by 572
“33 with the following changes: a teacher temperature schedule of 0.04–0.07 in 186,000 iterations and a reciprocal square root learning rate schedule with a warmup of 495,000 iterations (instead of 100,000) and linear cooldown to 0.0 for the last 819,200 iterations 29 .”
InfluentialA multimodal generative AI copilot for human pathology
Lu, M. Y., Chen, B., Williamson, D. F. K., Chen, R. J., Zhao, M., Chow, A. K., Ikemura, K., Kim, A., Pouli, D., Patel, A., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07618-3 · Cited by 461
Generative artificial intelligence, human creativity, and art
Zhou, E., & Lee, D. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae052 · Cited by 459
Tolan, J., Yang, H.-I., Nosarzewski, B., Couairon, G., Vo, H. V., Brandt, J., Spore, J., Majumdar, S., Haziza, D., Vamaraju, J., et al. (2024) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2023.113888 · Cited by 419
“Following the recent success of self-supervised learning on dense prediction tasks from Oquab et al. (2023), we employed a self-supervised learning step on 18 million globally distributed, randomly sampled 256 × 256 pixel Maxar satellite images to obtain an image encoder delivering features…”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationCrossFormer++: A Versatile Vision Transformer Hinging on Cross-Scale Attention
Wang, W., Chen, W., Qiu, Q., Chen, L., Wu, B., Lin, B., He, X., & Liu, W. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2023.3341806 · Cited by 348
“While contrastive learning [15], [16] generates different views for each image.”
BackgroundHow far are we to GPT-4V? Closing the gap to commercial multimodal models with open-source suites
Chen, Z., Wang, W., Tian, H., Ye, S., Gao, Z., Cui, E., Tong, W., Hu, K., Luo, J., Ma, Z., et al. (2024) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-024-4231-5 · Cited by 1,058
“Currently, models like CLIP-ViT [87] and SigLIP [131] are prevalently utilized; however, many studies have been conducted to find the most suitable vision encoders for MLLMs [53, 67, 72, [58, 60], combining a pre-trained InternViT-6B [20] with InternLM2-20B [13] through a MLP projector.”
On the challenges and perspectives of foundation models for medical image analysis
Zhang, S., & Metaxas, D. (2023) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2023.102996 · Cited by 340
ConceptGraphs: Open-Vocabulary 3D Scene Graphs for Perception and Planning
Gu, Q., Kuwajerwala, A., Morin, S., Jatavallabhula, K. M., Sen, B., Agarwal, A., Rivera, C., Paul, W., Ellis, K., Chellappa, R., et al. (2024) · 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) · doi:10.1109/icra57147.2024.10610243 · Cited by 406
“Each extracted mask m t,i is then passed to a visual feature extractor (CLIP [31], DINO [54]) to obtain a visual descriptor f t,i = Embed ( I rgb t , m t,i ) .”
MethodMM-LLMs: Recent Advances in MultiModal Large Language Models
Zhang, D., Yu, Y., Dong, J., Li, C., Su, D., Chu, C., & Yu, D. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.738 · Cited by 260
Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future
Firoozi, R., Tucker, J., Tian, S., Majumdar, A., Sun, J., Liu, W., Zhu, Y., Song, S., Kapoor, A., Hausman, K., et al. (2025) · The International Journal of Robotics Research · doi:10.1177/02783649241281508 · Cited by 238
“Many foundation models (e.g., the GPT models, the Dall-E models) can only be accessed this way, while others are usually accessed this way, but can also be downloaded and run locally with sufficient local computing power (such as SAM [59], LLaMA [214], and DINOv2 [107]).”
Foundation Model for Cancer Imaging Biomarkers
Pai, S., Bontempi, D., Hadzic, I., Prudente, V., Sokač, M., Chaunzwa, T. L., Bernatz, S., Hosny, A., Mak, R. H., Birkbak, N. J., et al. (2024) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00807-9 · Cited by 199
AnyLoc : Towards Universal Visual Place Recognition
Keetha, N., Mishra, A., Karhade, J., Murthy, J. K., Scherer, S., Krishna, K. M., & Garg, S. (2023) · IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · doi:10.1109/lra.2023.3343602 · Cited by 259
“Table VIII shows that the high performance of AnyLoc-VLAD is not a consequence of simply using a large ViT but an outcome of self-supervised training on large-scale curated data, which leads to generality in the underlying features [28].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEyes Wide Shut? Exploring the Visual Shortcomings of Multimodal LLMs
Tong, S., Liu, Z., Zhai, Y., Ma, Y., LeCun, Y., & Xie, S. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00914 · Cited by 189
“Our exploration includes the use of two visual encoders: CLIP-ViT-L-14 [43] and DINOV2-ViT-L-14 [42].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialChallenges in data-driven geospatial modeling for environmental research and practice
Koldasbayeva, D., Tregubova, P., Gasanov, M. E., Zaytsev, A., Petrovskaia, A., & Burnaev, E. V. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-55240-8 · Cited by 254
A Cookbook of Self-Supervised Learning
Balestriero, R., Ibrahim, M., Sobal, V., Morcos, A., Shekhar, S., Goldstein, T., Bordes, F., Bardes, A., Mialon, G., Tian, Y., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.12210 · Cited by 182
“, 2022a] and DINOV2 [Oquab et al., 2023] employ a mix of masked image modeling and more classical approaches such as self-distillation.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationZhang, W., Cai, M., Zhang, T., Zhuang, Y., & Mao, X. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2024.3409624 · Cited by 265
“In the visual-enhanced perception part, the DINOv2 ViT-L/14 [94] is adopted as the ViT encoder, and the frozen CLIP ConvNeXt-L [95] is utilized as the CNN encoder.”
MethodDeep-Learning-Based Semantic Segmentation of Remote Sensing Images: A Survey
Huang, L., Jiang, B., Lv, S., Liu, Y., & Fu, Y. (2023) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2023.3335891 · Cited by 196
Scaling Self-Supervised Learning for Histopathology with Masked Image Modeling
Filiot, A., Ghermi, R., Olivier, A., Jacob, P., Fidon, L., Camara, A., Mac Kain, A., Saillard, C., & Schiratti, J.-B. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.07.21.23292757 · Cited by 148
“A recent study in computer vision suggests that such technical improvements have the potential to achieve a two-fold increase in speed and a three-fold gain in memory efficiency compared to the iBOT method (81).”
BackgroundMethodResultOptimal Transport Aggregation for Visual Place Recognition
Izquierdo, S., & Civera, J. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01672 · Cited by 158
“Inspired by the success of ViT architectures in many computer vision tasks and by AnyLoc [28], that leverages the exceptional representational capabilities of foundation models [7], we adopt DINOv2 [41] as our backbone.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialZou, Z., Yu, Z., Guo, Y., Li, Y., Ding, L., Cao, Y., & Zhang, S. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00983 · Cited by 234
Xia, C., Wang, X., Lv, F., Hao, X., & Shi, Y. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00525 · Cited by 164
“The vision-specific backbone (e.g., Swin [28], CMT [15], MPViT [22], PVT series [40, 41]), combines the advantages of CNN and [2, 31, 42], DINOv2 [30]).”
BackgroundSAM-6D: Segment Anything Model Meets Zero-Shot 6D Object Pose Estimation
Lin, J., Liu, L., Lu, D., & Jia, K. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02636 · Cited by 135
“Implementation Details For ISM, we follow [40] to utilize the default ViT-H SAM [26] or FastSAM [74] for proposal generation, and the default ViT-L model of DINOv2 [44] to extract class and patch embeddings.”
MethodA clinical benchmark of public self-supervised pathology foundation models
Campanella, G., Chen, S., Singh, M., Verma, R., Muehlstedt, S., Zeng, J., Stock, A., Croken, M., Veremis, B., Elmas, A., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-58796-1 · Cited by 126
“Vorontsov et al. 25 introduced Virchow, a ViT-huge model trained on 2 billion tiles from almost 1.5 million proprietary slides with DINOv2 24 .”
InfluentialThe potential for AI to revolutionize conservation: a horizon scan
Reynolds, S. A., Beery, S., Burgess, N. D., Burgman, M. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Cooke, S. J., Coomes, D. A., Danielsen, F., Minin, E. D., Durán, A. P., et al. (2024) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2024.11.013 · Cited by 139
Wei, Z., Chen, L., Jin, Y., Ma, X., Liu, T., Ling, P., Wang, B., Chen, H., & Zheng, J. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02704 · Cited by 133
“DINOv2 is originally pretrained in a self-supervised fashion on the LVD-142M [46] dataset, following the procedures outlined in its respective paper.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialFoundation models for fast, label-free detection of glioma infiltration
Kondepudi, A., Pekmezci, M., Hou, X., Scotford, K., Jiang, C., Rao, A. T., Harake, E. S., Chowdury, A., Al‐Holou, W. N., Wang, L., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08169-3 · Cited by 128
“…the limitations of few-shot visualization are shown here with erroneous tumour matching shown in some regions of pathologic hyalinized vasculature. b , Similar to previous studies on visual foundation models 64 , we used principal component analysis (PCA) on patch features extracted by FastGlioma.”
A Multimodal Vision Foundation Model for Clinical Dermatology
Yan, S., Yu, Z., Primiero, C., Vico-Alonso, C., Wang, Z., Yang, L., Tschandl, P., Hu, M., Ju, L., Tan, G., et al. (2025) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-025-03747-y · Cited by 117
“38) (both widely used foundation models pretrained on natural images with a ViT-Large 42 backbone), and SwAVDerm 35 (a self-supervised model pretrained on a large skin image dataset from search engines).”
InfluentialA comprehensive survey of large language models and multimodal large language models in medicine
Xiao, H., Zhou, F., Liu, X., Liu, T., Ли, Ж., Liu, X., & Huang, X. (2024) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102888 · Cited by 154
“To tackle this challenge, integrating more advanced and higher-resolution vision encoders, such as DINOv2 [199] and SAM [200], into medical MLLMs represents a viable solution [201].”
GigaPose: Fast and Robust Novel Object Pose Estimation via One Correspondence
Nguyen, V. N., Groueix, T., Salzmann, M., & Lepetit, V. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00945 · Cited by 104
“Figure 4 shows qualitative comparisons with Mega-Pose [24] before and after refinement showcasing our more accurate pose estimates.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialObject Detection with Transformers: A Review
Shehzadi, T., Hashmi, K. A., Liwicki, M., Stricker, D., & Afzal, M. Z. (2025) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s25196025 · Cited by 93
Exploring scalable medical image encoders beyond text supervision
Pérez-García, F., Sharma, H., Bond-Taylor, S., Bouzid, K., Salvatelli, V., Ilse, M., Bannur, S., Castro, D. C., Schwaighofer, A., Lungren, M. P., et al. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00965-w · Cited by 115
“Image-level and pixel-level predictive tasks often necessitate distinct feature in-variances [42], thereby requiring complementary pre-training objectives [23, 22].”
InfluentialMultimodal Industrial Anomaly Detection by Crossmodal Feature Mapping
Costanzino, A., Ramirez, P. Z., Lisanti, G., & Stefano, L. D. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01631 · Cited by 114
Synthetic data in biomedicine via generative artificial intelligence
van Breugel, B., Liu, T., Oglić, D., & van der Schaar, M. (2024) · Nature Reviews Bioengineering · doi:10.1038/s44222-024-00245-7 · Cited by 111
DeDoDe: Detect, Don’t Describe — Describe, Don’t Detect for Local Feature Matching
Edstedt, J., Bökman, G., Wadenbäck, M., & Felsberg, M. (2024) · International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) · doi:10.1109/3dv62453.2024.00035 · Cited by 95
“This addition is simple in our framework, we just add frozen DINOv2 features at stride 14, with a corresponding decoder stage.”
MethodInfluentialOmniGlue: Generalizable Feature Matching with Foundation Model Guidance
Jiang, H., Karpur, A., Cao, B., Huang, Q., & Araújo, A. D. M. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01878 · Cited by 109
“By training on large-scale data, the foundation model, DINOv2 [34], performs well in diverse image domains on a variety of tasks, including robust region-level matching [21, 34, 56].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSNI-SLAM: Semantic Neural Implicit SLAM
Zhu, S., Wang, G., Blum, H., Liu, J., Song, L., Pollefeys, M., & Wang, H. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02000 · Cited by 111
“In this work, we utilize an universal feature extractor Dinov2 [28], followed by segmentation head to construct the segmentation network.”
MethodUAVs meet LLMs: Overviews and perspectives towards agentic low-altitude mobility
Tian, Y., Lin, F., Li, Y., Zhang, T., Zhang, Q., Fu, X., Huang, J., Dai, X., Wang, Y., Tian, C., et al. (2025) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103158 · Cited by 139
“AM-RADIO [202] integrated the capabilities of VFMs such as CLIP [194], DINOv2 [201], and SAM [206] through a multi-teacher distillation method, resulting in strong representational power to support complex visual tasks.”
InfluentialCricaVPR: Cross-Image Correlation-Aware Representation Learning for Visual Place Recognition
Lu, F. H., Lan, X., Zhang, L., Jiang, D., Wang, Y., & Yuan, C. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01587 · Cited by 86
“…memory overhead, our model learns highly robust global representation via cross-image correlation awareness for global-retrieval-based VPR. Parameter-efficient Transfer Learning: Some recent studies [49, 54, 63, 72] trained the large transformer-based foundation models on huge quantities of data.”
BackgroundMethodUnified-IO 2: Scaling Autoregressive Multimodal Models with Vision, Language, Audio, and Action
Lu, J., Clark, C., Lee, S.-H., Zhang, Z., Khosla, S., Marten, R., Hoiem, D., & Kembhavi, A. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02497 · Cited by 195
AttentionViz: A Global View of Transformer Attention
Yeh, C. V., Chen, Y., Wu, A., Chen, C., Viégas, F. B., & WATTENBERG, M. P. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2023.3327163 · Cited by 105
“A sufficiently large random sample (e.g., a few thousand tokens) is enough to surface large-scale, global phenomena, but larger datasets and models may reveal additional semantic insights, as suggested by [38].”
BackgroundMachine learning methods for histopathological image analysis: updates in 2024
Komura, D., Ochi, M., & Ishikawa, S. (2025) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2024.12.033 · Cited by 76
ViTMatte: Boosting image matting with pre-trained plain vision transformers
Yao, J., Wang, X., Yang, S., & Wang, B. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.102091 · Cited by 96
Artificial intelligence in digital pathology — time for a reality check
Aggarwal, A., Bharadwaj, S., Corredor, G., Pathak, T. B., Badve, S., & Madabhushi, A. (2025) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-025-00991-6 · Cited by 84
LVLM-EHub: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models
Xu, P., Shao, W., Zhang, K., Gao, P., Liu, S., Lei, M., Meng, F., Huang, S., Qiao, Y., & Luo, P. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2024.3507000 · Cited by 273
VRP-SAM: SAM with Visual Reference Prompt
Sun, Y., Chen, J., Zhang, S., et al. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02224 · Cited by 73
“To achieve this goal, some methods [19, 48] incorporate semantic correlation models [9, 25] to establish reference-target correlation 1 , obtaining pseudo-masks for the target objects.”
MethodResultInfluentialMorphological Prototyping for Unsupervised Slide Representation Learning in Computational Pathology
Song, A. H., Chen, R. J., Ding, T., Williamson, D. F. K., Jaume, G., & Mahmood, F. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01099 · Cited by 79
“For the feature extractor f enc ( · ) , which is the same for all baselines used in this work, we used UNI [18], a ViT-L/16 DINOv2 [28, 66] that was pre-trained on a large internal histology dataset of 1 ⇥ 10 8 patches from 1 ⇥ 10 6 WSIs ⇤ .”
MethodAstroCLIP: a cross-modal foundation model for galaxies
Parker, L., Lanusse, F., Golkar, S., Sarra, L., Cranmer, M., Bietti, A., Eickenberg, M., Krawezik, G. P., McCabe, M., Morel, R., et al. (2024) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1450 · Cited by 134
Deep learning for wildfire risk prediction: Integrating remote sensing and environmental data
Xu, Z., Li, J., Cheng, S. L., Xue, R., Zhao, Y., He, H., Guan, H., Sharma, A., Erxleben, M., Chang, R., et al. (2025) · ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2025.06.002 · Cited by 114
Few-Shot Object Detection with Foundation Models
Han, G., & Lim, S.-N. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02703 · Cited by 85
CNOS: A Strong Baseline for CAD-based Novel Object Segmentation
Nguyen, V. N., Groueix, T., Ponimatkin, G., Lepetit, V., & Hodaň, T. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw60793.2023.00227 · Cited by 87
“In the onboarding stage, we render a set of RGB synthetic templates and extract their visual descriptors using DINOv2 [20].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMohan, J., Sivasubramanian, A., Sowmya, V., & Ravi, V. (2025) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110007 · Cited by 88
“3) DinoV2: The self-DIstillation with NO labels (DINO) [37] is a sophisticated self-supervised learning approach for training models that improves computer vision by reliably detecting specific objects inside pictures and video frames.”
CellSAM: A Foundation Model for Cell SegmentationPreprint
Israel, U., Marks, M., Dilip, R., Li, Q., Yu, C., Laubscher, E., Iqbal, A., Pradhan, E., Ates, A., Abt, M., et al. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.11.17.567630 · Cited by 64
Self-citationPathoDuet: Foundation models for pathological slide analysis of H&E and IHC stains
Hua, S., Yan, F., Shen, T., Ma, L., & Zhang, X. (2024) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2024.103289 · Cited by 68
BigGait: Learning Gait Representation You Want by Large Vision Models
Ye, D., Fan, C., Ma, J., Liu, X., & Yu, S. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00027 · Cited by 71
“We are strongly motivated by the following insights: • The recent breakthroughs [17, 23, 34, 36] have confirmed the discriminability and generalization of all-purpose features produced by LVMs, showcasing an attractive opportunity to enhance gait metric learning.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBEVNeXt: Reviving Dense BEV Frameworks for 3D Object Detection
Li, Z., Lan, S., Álvarez, J. M., & Wu, Z. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01901 · Cited by 75
“ViT-L [10] is pretrained on COCO [33] and Objects365 [52], while ViT-Adapter-L [8] is pretrained on DINOv2 [47].”
BackgroundVideoAgent: A Memory-augmented Multimodal Agent for Video Understanding
Fan, Y., Ma, X., Wu, R., Du, Y., Li, J., Gao, Z., & Li, Q. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.11481 · Cited by 60
Jiang, Z., Seyedi, S. S., Griner, E. L., Abbasi, A., Rad, A. B., Kwon, H., Cotes, R. O., & Clifford, G. D. (2024) · IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2024.3352075 · Cited by 89
“…are as follows: “AWS” denotes the Amazon web services, “rPPG” denotes the remote photoplethysmogram extracted from the face [52], “DinoV2” [53], “WavLM” [54], “LLAMA” [55] and “RoBERTa”[56] are the foundation models for each modality; “HMM” denotes the hidden Markov model; “MHC” refers to…”
Tracking and mapping in medical computer vision: A review
Schmidt, A., Mohareri, O., DiMaio, S., Yip, M. C., & Salcudean, S. E. (2024) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2024.103131 · Cited by 61
Seismic foundation model: A next generation deep-learning model in geophysics
Sheng, H., Wu, X., Si, X., Li, J., Zhang, S., & Duan, X. (2024) · Geophysics · doi:10.1190/geo2024-0262.1 · Cited by 89
A survey of autonomous robots and multi-robot navigation: Perception, planning and collaboration
Chen, W., Chi, W., Ji, S., Ye, H., Liu, J., Jia, Y., Yu, J., & Cheng, J. (2024) · Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics · doi:10.1016/j.birob.2024.100203 · Cited by 70
Are Natural Domain Foundation Models Useful for Medical Image Classification?
Huix, J. P., Ganeshan, A. R., Haslum, J. F., Söderberg, M. P., Matsoukas, C., & Smith, K. (2024) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv57701.2024.00746 · Cited by 67
“D INO v2, introduced by Oquab et al. [27], is a V I T-based model that leverages a robust unsupervised pretraining method.”
MethodVision Transformers Need Registers
Darcet, T., Oquab, M., Mairal, J., & Bojanowski, P. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.16588 · Cited by 90
“DINOv2 (Oquab et al., 2023) is a self-supervised method for learning visual features, following the DINO work.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationSAM-guided multi-level collaborative Transformer for infrared and visible image fusion
Guo, L., Luo, X., Liu, Y., Zhang, Z., & Wu, X. (2025) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2025.111391 · Cited by 61
Multi-Task Dense Prediction via Mixture of Low-Rank Experts
Yang, Y., Jiang, P.-T., Hou, Q., Zhang, H., Chen, J., & Li, B. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02638 · Cited by 68
“The advantage of decoder-focused methods lies in that they can benefit from powerful off-the-shelf vision backbones, such as DI-NOv2 [37].”
BackgroundZhang, Y., Pan, Y., Zhong, T., Dong, P., Xie, K., Liu, Y., Jiang, H., Wu, Z., Liu, Z., Zhao, W., et al. (2024) · Meta-Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.metrad.2024.100103 · Cited by 52
Transcriptomics-Guided Slide Representation Learning in Computational Pathology
Jaume, G., Oldenburg, L., Vaidya, A., Chen, R. J., Williamson, D. F. K., Peeters, T., Song, A. H., & Mahmood, F. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00920 · Cited by 51
“…two distinct augmentations) while simultaneously pushing away representations of dissimilar images; (2) reconstruction approaches [28, 90], which aim to recover specific portions of an occluded image from the remaining parts of the same image; and (3) approaches combining both objectives [64, 98].”
BackgroundSelf-supervision advances morphological profiling by unlocking powerful image representations
Kim, V., Adaloglou, N., Osterland, M., Morelli, F. M., Halawa, M., König, T., Gnutt, D., & Zapata, P. A. M. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-88825-4 · Cited by 59
Multi-HMR: Multi-person Whole-Body Human Mesh Recovery in a Single Shot
Baradel, F., Armando, M., Galaaoui, S., Brégier, R., Weinzaepfel, P., Rogez, G., & Lucas, T. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73337-6_12 · Cited by 71
WildlifeDatasets: An open-source toolkit for animal re-identification
Čermák, V., Picek, L., Adam, L., & Papafitsoros, K. (2024) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv57701.2024.00585 · Cited by 60
“Another approach is to use publicly available large-scale, foundational models pre-trained on large datasets (e.g., CLIP [42] and DINOv2 [37]).”
BackgroundMethodThe effectiveness of MAE pre-pretraining for billion-scale pretraining
Singh, M., Duval, Q., Alwala, K. V., Fan, H., Aggarwal, V., Adcock, A., Joulin, A., Dollár, P., Feichtenhofer, C., Girshick, R., et al. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00505 · Cited by 70
“They also surpass the performance of the self-supervised DINOv2 [56] Generalization in image classification.”
BackgroundSelf-citationNeRF On-the-go: Exploiting Uncertainty for Distractor-free NeRFs in the Wild
Ren, W., Zhu, Z., Sun, B., Chen, J., Pollefeys, M., & Peng, S. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00853 · Cited by 54
“First, we utilize DINOv2 features [33] for their robustness and spatial-temporal consistency in feature extraction, from which a small multi-layer perception (MLP) predicts per-sample pixel uncertainty.”
BackgroundMethodKhan, S. A., & Dang-Nguyen, D.-T. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3348450 · Cited by 53
Telling Left from Right: Identifying Geometry-Aware Semantic Correspondence
Zhang, J., Herrmann, C., Hur, J., Chen, E., Jampani, V., Sun, D., & Yang, M. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00297 · Cited by 53
“Since the advent of high fidelity text-to-image (T2I) generative models [40, 41] and large vision foundation models [36], there has been significant interest in understanding both what these models are learning and what they are not.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSpectralEarth: Training Hyperspectral Foundation Models at Scale
Braham, N. A. A., Albrecht, C. M., Mairal, J., Chanussot, J., Wang, Y., & Zhu, X. X. (2025) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2025.3581451 · Cited by 87
“Recent studies have shown significant performance gains through model scaling in SSL [27, 51].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationFoundation Model-Based Multimodal Remote Sensing Data Classification
He, X. J., Chen, Y., Huang, L., Hong, D., & Du, Q. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2023.3344698 · Cited by 55
A Survey on Continual Semantic Segmentation: Theory, Challenge, Method and Application
Yuan, B., & Zhao, D. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2024.3446949 · Cited by 59
“In CSS, using a strong pre-trained model [150], [151] that covers a huge amount of semantic categories can help tackle unseen semantic classes in downstream tasks.”
MethodBoers, T. G. W., Fockens, K. N., van der Putten, J. A., Jaspers, T. J. M., Kusters, C. H. J., Jukema, J. B., Jong, M. R., Struyvenberg, M. R., de Groof, J., Bergman, J. J. G. H. M., et al. (2024) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2024.103298 · Cited by 56
“These frameworks exhibit versatility and are not constrained to one specific architecture proposed in newer frameworks, such as DI-NOv2 (Oquab et al., 2023) and MoCov3 (Chen et al.)”
BackgroundProbing the 3D Awareness of Visual Foundation Models
Banani, M. E., Raj, A., Maninis, K.-K., Kar, A., Li, Y., Rubinstein, M., Sun, D., Guibas, L., Johnson, J., & Jampani, V. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02059 · Cited by 52
OpenVLA: An Open-Source Vision-Language-Action Model
Kim, M. J., Pertsch, K., Karamcheti, S., Xiao, T., Balakrishna, A., Nair, S., Rafailov, R., Foster, E., Lam, G., Sanketi, P., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.09246 · Cited by 62
“…to scale VLA training, and specifically use VLMs from Karamcheti et al. [44] as our pretrained backbone, as they are trained from multi-resolution visual features , fusing low-level spatial information from DINOv2 [25] with higher-level semantics from SigLIP [9] to aid in visual generalization.”
BackgroundMethodBrain-Inspired Remote Sensing Foundation Models and Open Problems: A Comprehensive Survey
Jiao, L., Huang, Z., Lu, X., Liu, X., Yang, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., Hou, B., Yang, S., Liu, F., et al. (2023) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2023.3316302 · Cited by 49
Deep phenotyping of health–disease continuum in the Human Phenotype Project
Reicher, L., Shilo, S., Godneva, A., Lutsker, G., Zahavi, L., Shoer, S., Krongauz, D. L., Rein, M., Kohn, S., Segev, T., et al. (2025) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-025-03790-9 · Cited by 52
“53) pretrained weights to integrate fundus and carotid ultrasound imaging for enhanced medical image representation.”
BoQ: A Place is Worth a Bag of Learnable Queries
Ali-bey, A., Chaib-draa, B., & Giguère, P. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01685 · Cited by 44
“The second backbone, DinoV2 [37], also with 86 M parameters, underwent a similar process of freezing, leaving the final two blocks unfrozen for training.”
MethodZambrano Chaves, J. M., Huang, S.-C., Xu, Y., Xu, H., Usuyama, N., Zhang, S., Wang, F., Xie, Y., Khademi, M., Yang, Z., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-58344-x · Cited by 45
Self-citationVideoBooth: Diffusion-based Video Generation with Image Prompts
Jiang, Y., Wu, T., Yang, S., Si, C., Lin, D., Qiao, Y., Loy, C. C., & Liu, Z. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00639 · Cited by 73
“As for the evaluation of the similarity between the given image prompts and the generated videos, we adopt two metrics: CLIP-Image and DINO [7, 63].”
MethodFreeControl: Training-Free Spatial Control of Any Text-to-Image Diffusion Model with Any Condition
Mo, S., Mu, F., Lin, K. H., Liu, Y., Guan, B., Li, Y., & Zhou, B. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00713 · Cited by 74
“Towards disentangling image structure and appearance, we draw inspiration from Transformer feature visualization [35, 53] and perform PCA on self-attention features of semantically similar images.”
Exploring plain ViT features for multi-class unsupervised visual anomaly detection
Zhang, J., Chen, X., Wang, Y., Wang, C., Liu, Y., Li, X., Yang, M., & Tao, D. (2025) · Computer Vision and Image Understanding · doi:10.1016/j.cviu.2025.104308 · Cited by 117
Breen, J., Allen, K., Zucker, K., Godson, L., Orsi, N. M., & Ravikumar, N. (2025) · npj Precision Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41698-025-00799-8 · Cited by 61
“The largest histopathology foundation models (all published in 2024) ,000WSIsusingDINOv2 56 .”
Whitman, S. E., & Latypov, M. I. (2025) · Acta Materialia · doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2025.121217 · Cited by 54
“CLIP and DINOv2 output a multidimensional image-level token called “classification” (or [CLS]) token [28, 30].”
Real-time semantic segmentation for autonomous driving: A review of CNNs, Transformers, and Beyond
Elhassan, M. A. M., Zhou, C., Khan, A. H., Benabid, A., Adam, A. B. M., Mehmood, A., & Wambugu, N. M. (2024) · Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2024.102226 · Cited by 53
Challenges for Monocular 6-D Object Pose Estimation in Robotics
Thalhammer, S., Bauer, D., Hönig, P., Weibel, J.-B., García‐Rodríguez, J., & Vincze, M. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Robotics · doi:10.1109/tro.2024.3433870 · Cited by 56
“The equivalent for vision [218], [219] is shown to allow zero-shot execution of vision and robotic tasks [12], [15], [220].”
BackgroundLuo, M., Zhang, T., Wei, S., & Ji, S. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2024.3460085 · Cited by 53
A fully open AI foundation model applied to chest radiography
Ma, D., Pang, J., Gotway, M. B., & Liang, J. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09079-8 · Cited by 48
V-STRONG: Visual Self-Supervised Traversability Learning for Off-road Navigation
Jung, S., Lee, J., Meng, X., Boots, B., & Lambert, A. (2024) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra57147.2024.10611227 · Cited by 58
“Such “Vision Foundation Models” are typically trained on other vision-based tasks, such as semantic segmentation or image classification, but are able to learn rich, mid-level representations that can generalize to other, novel tasks with impressive results [22–24].”
BackgroundChakraborty, N., Ornik, M., & Driggs-Campbell, K. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3716846 · Cited by 60
“Examples of existing pre-trained foundation models span language (Devlin et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Touvron et al., 2023a), vision (Caron et al., 2021; Oquab et al., 2024; Kir-illov et al., 2023), and multi-modal (Radford et al., 2021; Achiam et al., 2023) inputs.”
SpotLessSplats: Ignoring Distractors in 3D Gaussian Splatting
Sabour, S., Goli, L., Kopanas, G., Matthews, M., Lagun, D., Guibas, L. J., Jacobson, A., Fleet, D. J., & Tagliasacchi, A. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Graphics · doi:10.1145/3727143 · Cited by 85
“Note that, unlike NeRF, which renders one pixel at a time , 3DSG renders the entire image in a single forward pass.”
MMEarth: Exploring Multi-modal Pretext Tasks for Geospatial Representation Learning
Nedungadi, V., Kariryaa, A., Oehmcke, S., Belongie, S., Igel, C., & Lang, N. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73039-9_10 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Oquab, M., Darcet, T., Moutakanni, T., Vo, H., Szafraniec, M., Khalidov, V., Fernandez, P., Haziza, D., Massa, F., El-Nouby, A., Assran, M., Ballas, N., Galuba, W., Howes, R., Huang, P.-Y., Li, S.-W., Misra, I., Rabbat, M., Sharma, V., Synnaeve, G., Xu, H., Jegou, H., Mairal, J., Labatut, P., Joulin, A., & Bojanowski, P.
- Affiliations
- Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2304.07193
- OpenAlex
- W4366208220
- Cited by
- 1,078
- References
- 131
- Citations by year
- 2026: 123 · 2025: 404 · 2024: 485 · 2023: 66
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-19-P3IA-0003, ANR‐19)
- HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council (101087696)
- 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
- DINOv2, self-supervised pre-training, vision transformer, foundation models, knowledge distillation, large-scale training, image classification benchmark
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
