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 — no full text of the sourcecites Caron et al., 2020 source
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
Items 901–1,000 of 1,090
Weighted Ensemble Models Are Strong Continual LearnersPreprint
Marouf, I. E., Roy, S., Tartaglione, E., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.08977
Good Fences Make Good Neighbours
Estepa, I. G., Rodríguez-de-Vera, J. M., Nagarajan, B., & Radeva, P. I. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw60793.2023.00029
LoCUS: Learning Multiscale 3D-consistent Features from Posed Images
Kloepfer, D. A., Campbell, D., & Henriques, J. F. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.01525
Improving Vision Transformers with Novel GLU-Type NonlinearitiesPreprint
Byrne, L., Murray, P., & Marshall, S. (2024) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.170956747.79400848/v1
Foundation Model Vision Transformers are Great Tracking Backbones
Kenneweg, T., Kenneweg, P., & Hammer, B. (2024) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Computer, Data Sciences and Applications (ACDSA) · doi:10.1109/acdsa59508.2024.10467598
“Specifically we focus on the Vision Transformer encoder models introduced by Segment Anything [1] and DINOv2 [2].”
BackgroundMethodBilgisayarlı Görüde Öz-Denetimli Öğrenme Yöntemleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme
Alasu, S., & Talu, M. F. (2024) · Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi · doi:10.29130/dubited.1201292 · Cited by 1
Representation Synthesis by Probabilistic Many-Valued Logic Operation in Self-Supervised Learning
Nakamura, H., Okada, M., & Taniguchi, T. (2024) · IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/ojsp.2024.3399663
Toward Unsupervised Visual Reasoning: Do Off-the-Shelf Features Know How to Reason?
Wysoczańska, M., Monnier, T., Trzcinski, T. P., & Picard, D. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3406261
Application specificity of data for pre-training in computer vision
Peters, G., Couwenhoven, S. D., Walvoord, D. J., & Salvaggio, C. (2024) · Disruptive Technologies in Information Sciences · doi:10.1117/12.3013088
“These results are supported by multiple other findings in pre-training literature [16, 7].”
ResultA robust image geo-localization architecture with foundation vision model and feature mixing
Huang, G., zhou, Y., Hu, X., et al. (2024) · International Conference on Remote Sensing, Mapping, and Image Processing (RSMIP) · doi:10.1117/12.3029818
“We have network-cropped the foundation vision model DINOv2[17], removing the layer norm and head at the end, obtaining the feature matrix of C (channel number) × D (feature vector length) output by the last block of DINOv2.”
BackgroundMethodDeng, D., Zhao, B., Sun, Q., et al. (2023) · doi:10.1109/mvipit60427.2023.00020
Transform Domain Learning for Image Recognition
Tan, D., Zhao, J., & Li, S. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3432670
Self-citationFrom 2D to 3D: AISG-SLA Visual Localization Challenge
Gao, J., Ong, B., Lwi, D., Ng, Z. H., Yee, X. W., Mak, M.-T., Ng, W. S., Ng, S.-K., Teo, H. Y., Khoo, V., et al. (2024) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2024/1003
“The team devised a pipeline that integrates image retrieval with DINOv2 [Oquab et al. , 2023], and full structure-from-motion reconstruction with COLMAP [Sch¨onberger and Frahm, 2016; Sch¨onberger et al. , 2016].”
MethodEfficient greenhouse segmentation with visual foundation models: achieving more with fewer samples
Lu, Y., Wang, J., Wang, D., & Liu, T. (2024) · Frontiers in Environmental Science · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2024.1395337
Foundation Models for Cardiovascular Disease Detection via BioSignals from Digital StethoscopesPreprint
Mathew, G., Barbosa, D., Prince, J., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4732737/v1
AnyOKP: One-Shot and Instance-Aware Object Keypoint Extraction with Pretrained ViT
Qin, F., Hou, T., Lin, S., et al. (2024) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra57147.2024.10610601
Kuang, W., Lv, Y., Yang, Y., Wang, W., Shan, H., & Yang, S. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing / IEEE International Conference on Edge Computing and Scalable Cloud (CSCloud/EdgeCom) · doi:10.1109/edgecom62867.2024.00021
“Building on the above methods, Caron et al. [11] and Oquab [12] proposed BYOL and Dinov2, respectively, abandoning negative sample supervision and training the model only by constructing pairs of anchor and positive samples.”
MethodDiffusion Models for Nuclei Segmentation in Low Data Regimes
Alexis, K., Christodoulidis, S., Gunopulos, D., & Vakalopoulou, M. (2024) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi56570.2024.10635616 · Cited by 2
“…methods U-Net [17] 0.6975 0.5151 0.486 0.2363 0.6145 0.5099 Attention U-Net [17] 0.7039 0.5351 0.4833 0.2584 0.6445 0.52504 Pretrained Models with low data regimes DINOv2 Linear [15] 0.5511 0.38 0.321 0.0298 0.4339 0.3432 DINOv2 SETR-PUP [15] 0 The segmentation results are presented in Table 1.”
InfluentialBenchmarking Vision Encoders for Survival Analysis using Histopathological ImagesPreprint
Nizami, A., & Halder, A. (2024) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.08.23.24312362
Weakly Supervised Vector Quantization for Whole Slide Image ClassificationPreprint
Shen, D., Zhang, Y., & Imoto, S. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.08.31.610626
“To address this issue, some research [10, 11, 12, 15] has focused on using a large number of unlabeled WSIs to pretrain vision encoders within self-supervised learning frameworks such as SimCLR [16]or DINO [17, 18].”
FCert: Certifiably Robust Few-Shot Classification in the Era of Foundation Models
Wang, Y., Zou, W., & Jia, J. (2024) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp54263.2024.00240 · Cited by 1
“These experiments were carried out using two foundational models: CLIP [1] from OpenAI and DI-NOv2 [4] from Meta.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-Supervised Vision Transformers for Scalable Anomaly Detection over Images
Samele, S., & Matteucci, M. (2024) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10650115
“In particular, a novel version of the DINO algorithm has been released [43], as well as a powerful point-and-click segmentation tool [44] by Meta.”
MethodSribble Supervised Multimodal Medical Image Segmentation
Wang, Z., Zhang, X., & Zhao, J. (2024) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10650603
How SAM helps Unsupervised Video Object Segmentation?
Yue, J., Zhang, R., Zhang, Z., et al. (2024) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10651290
Pixel-level Monocular Depth Estimation Based on Global-local Feature Fusion
Tian, D., Wang, B., & Xie, L. (2024) · International Conference on Communications, Information System and Computer Engineering (CISCE) · doi:10.1109/cisce62493.2024.10653215
Indoor Scene Reconstruction From Monocular Video Combining Contextual and Geometric Priors
Wen, M., Sheng, X., & Cho, K. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3481250
Instant Uncertainty Calibration of NeRFs Using a Meta-calibrator
Amini-Naieni, N., Jakab, T., Vedaldi, A., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73229-4_18
“…a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) with three layers of output size: [128, 128, 3] and Leaky ReLU activations throughout except the last layer as the meta-calibrator to estimate θ given features extracted by the DINOv2 model [20] from rendered images ( f I ) and uncalibrated uncertainty maps ( f κ ).”
MethodBI-MDRG: Bridging Image History in Multimodal Dialogue Response Generation
Yoon, H. S., Yoon, E., Tee, J. T. J., Zhang, K., Heo, Y., Chang, D.-S., & Yoo, C. D. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72751-1_22
DatasetNeRF: Efficient 3D-Aware Data Factory with Generative Radiance Fields
Chi, Y., Zhan, F., Wu, S., Theobalt, C., & Kortylewski, A. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73033-7_20
Aligning Neuronal Coding of Dynamic Visual Scenes with Foundation Vision Models
Wu, R., Zhou, F., Yin, Z., & Liu, J. K. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73223-2_14 · Cited by 1
FuseTeacher: Modality-Fused Encoders are Strong Vision Supervisors
Xie, C.-W., Sun, S., Zhao, L., Li, P., Ma, S., & Zheng, Y. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73195-2_17
Kalman contrastive unsupervised representation learning
Yekta, M. M. J. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-76085-7
SLUMBR: SLeep statUs estiMation from aBdominal Respiratory effort
Romero, H. E., Ma, N., Brown, G. J., & Johnson, S. R. (2024) · Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) · doi:10.1109/embc53108.2024.10782490
“Although publicly available foundation models exist for audio (e.g., OpenAI Whisper [16]), text (e.g., Google PaLM 2 [17]), and images (e.g., Meta AI DINOv2 [18]), there are none for physiological signals or, more generally, for time series data.”
Register assisted aggregation for visual place recognition
Yu, X., & Fu, Z. (2024) · Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation · doi:10.1016/j.jvcir.2024.104384
Pretrained Visual Representations in Reinforcement Learning
Williams, E., & Polydoros, A. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72059-8_6
PGP: Prior-Guided Pretraining for Small-sample Esophageal Cancer Segmentation
Shi, Q., Duan, W.-H., Chen, W., et al. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm62325.2024.10822499
“To assess our bounding box-based pre-training strategy for EC segmentation, we compared it with other methods, including simMIM [20], BYOL [4], CIM [11], and Dino [14], achieving the highest segmentation accuracy (Table I).”
InfluentialVisual Lifelog Retrieval through Captioning-Enhanced Interpretation
Shih, Y.-F., Yen, A.-Z., Huang, H., & Chen, H. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10825835 · Cited by 2
“Vision Embedding Model: We use the DINOv2 ViT-G14 model [24] for filtering algorithm in merged caption Method.”
Improving Zero-Shot Template-Based 6D Pose Estimation with Geometric Features
Pöllabauer, T., Weyel, J., Knauthe, V., Berkei, S., & Kuijper, A. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-77392-1_4
Ruosch, F., Vasu, R., Wang, R., Rossetto, L., & Bernstein, A. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78955-7_16
Multi-scale Attention Network for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Segmentation Using Self-supervised Learning
Murali, A., Chuquilín, M., & Lee, E.-J. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-80871-5_7
Multi-MELO: Unified multimodal model editing with dynamic LoRA
Chen, Q., Yin, J., Yu, L., Zhou, J., & He, L. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.126766
Chandrashekar, A., Gala, R., Tjärnberg, A., Khullar, S., Huynh, G. H., & Gabitto, M. I. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.02.13.637984 · Cited by 1
Uncover the balanced geometry in long-tailed contrastive language-image pretraining
Zhou, Z., Ye, Y., Hong, F., Zhao, P., Yao, J., Zhang, Y., Tian, Q., & Wang, Y. (2025) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-025-06745-w · Cited by 1
“Notably, the most prominent methods, CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) and its relatives (Jia et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022, 2023), have demonstrated remarkable improvements in zero-shot and few-shot capabilities compared to previous unimodal visual models (Chen et al., 2020; Oquab et al., 2023).”
Advancing video self-supervised learning via image foundation models
Wu, J., Huang, Z., & Liu, C. (2025) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2025.03.015 · Cited by 1
“As illustrated in Table 4, when using MAE-L / 16 [42] as the IFM, its performance on UCF101 [13] and Diving48 [31] datasets is slightly inferior to that of using CLIP-L / 14 [1] as the IFM (exp.1 & 2), while Dino-v2 [43] exhibits better performance as the IFM (exp.1 & 3).”
PATSA-BIL: Pipeline for automated texture and structure analysis of borehole image logs
Souza, A. M., Cruz, M. A., Braga, P. M. C., et al. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.127345
Persian Text-Image Retrieval: A Framework Based on Image Captioning and Scalable Vector Search
Asadian, R., & Akhavanpour, A. (2025) · International Computer Conference, Computer Society of Iran (CSICC) · doi:10.1109/csicc65765.2025.10967407
“Balancing accuracy, latency, and parameter efficiency, we selected DINOv2-base [24] as the vision-encoder for our framework.”
Bai, K., Zhang, L., Liu, Y., Chen, Z., & Zhang, J. (2025) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.174612328.83478240/v1
Edge-Device Test-Time Distillation for Combating Adverse Weather ConditionsPreprint
Yu, Y., Ko, M., Park, Y., & Lee, K. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5245289
Three-dimensional ultrasonic self supervised segmentation
McKnight, S., Tunukovic, V., Hifi, A., Pierce, G., Mohseni, E., MacLeod, C., & O’Hare, T. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.110870 · Cited by 3
“…has been applied broadly from computer vision to natural language processing and has demonstrated impressive performance in many notable DL tasks, such as with large language models (Devlin et al., 2019), (Ray, 2023) and large vision models (Oquab et al., 2024), (CLIP: Connecting text and images.).”
Hierarchical language description knowledge base for LLM-based human pose estimation
Chen, W., & Xie, X. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.130336
Unsupervised Domain Adaptation for 3D Hand Mesh Reconstruction via Mask-mesh Consistency
Kang, R., Noh, S., Lee, J., et al. (2025) · Journal of Institute of Control Robotics and Systems · doi:10.5302/j.icros.2025.24.8008
Deep learning retrieval of 3D casting models combined with professional knowledge for process reuse
Pei, X.-L., Hou, H., Chen, L., et al. (2025) · China Foundry · doi:10.1007/s41230-025-4145-7
“Therefore, dual-stage implicit object-oriented network (DINOv2) [44] and CLIP [45] were incorporated.”
Enhancing color selectivity in foundation models for downstream color vision tasks
Bianco, S. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.130471
Analysis of Hybrid Compositions in Animation Film with Weakly Supervised Learning
Portos, M. A., Labadie, R., Stemmler, C., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-91572-7_5
Shahabi, H., Homayouni, S., Ghorbanzadeh, O., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5271057
A weakly supervised method for surgical scene components detection with visual foundation model
Zhang, X., Feng, J., Zhang, Q., et al. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0322751
Fourret, G., Chaumont, M., Fiorio, C., Subsol, G., & Brau, S. (2025) · International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) · doi:10.1109/icuas65942.2025.11007893
“Recently, DE-ViT [20] utilizes the capabilities of Dinov2 [21] [22] for FSOD by generating prototypes for each class based on support examples A frozen RPN is used to generate bounding boxes, which are subsequently refined by the propagation network.”
Detect Fake with Fake: Leveraging Synthetic Data-Driven Representation for Synthetic Image Detection
Otake, H., Fukuhara, Y., Kubotani, Y., & Morishima, S. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92648-8_19
Federated Learning for UAV Perception Task : A SurveyPreprint
Bardes, Y., Soubra, H., Noumir, Z., & Ramdane-Chérif, A. (2025) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.174906148.89641328/v1 · Cited by 1
Vision Transformer-based Biofouling Anomaly Detection for Underwater Robots
Jang, H., Lee, D., Rho, S., et al. (2025) · The Journal of Korea Robotics Society · doi:10.7746/jkros.2025.20.2.310
Mueller, P., Mueller, S., & Mikelsons, L. (2025) · Engineering Computations · doi:10.1108/ec-08-2024-0788 · Cited by 3
Figuerêdo, J. S. L., Filho, L. A. D., & Calumby, R. T. (2025) · doi:10.5753/sbcas.2025.7677
Liang, C., Cappelletto, J., Bodenmann, A., Turnock, S. R., Thornton, B., Huvenne, V. A. I., & Wardell, C. (2024) · IEEE/OES Autonomous Underwater Vehicles · doi:10.1109/auv61864.2024.11030795
“Recently, transformer models based on advances in natural language processing have also been used for self-supervised feature learning [6], achieving comparable performance to CNNs.”
Zheng, J., Liu, Q., Ding, Y., Cao, Y., Hu, Y., & Wang, Z. (2025) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2025.103675
Tiny-VPS: Tiny Video Panoptic Segmentation Standing on the Shoulder of Giant-VPS
Liu, Q., El‐Khamy, M., & Song, K.-B. (2025) · IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/ojsp.2025.3581840
AutoLRG: A Two-Stage Framework for Automated Lane-Level Road Graph Construction
Qi, H., Shi, H., Yang, X., et al. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2025.3581913
Efficient Object-Centric Learning for Videos
Maus, R., & Maki, A. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-95911-0_8
Parameter-Efficient Fine Tuning with Debiased Sensitivity and Constrained Low-Rank Adaptation
Pégeot, T., Kucher, I., Popescu, A., & Delezoide, B. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-6972-1_12
CrossHand: Multimodal 3D Hand Reconstruction via Vision and Wearable Sensor Data Fusion
Lin, S., Zhou, G., Xiao, C., Jiang, Q., Yang, D., & Yu, H. (2025) · International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3731715.3733472
“The vision encoder adopts DinoV2-base [11], segmenting the input into patches and processing them with multi-head self-attention (MHSA).”
Self-supervision with quantum classifiers
Tran, M.-H., Nguyen, N.-H., Nguyen, P.-N., & Ngo, H.-S. (2025) · Nonlinear Theory and Its Applications IEICE · doi:10.1587/nolta.16.777
DINO-DIS: Vision Foundation Model-Guided Feature Disentanglement for Adverse Weather Adaptation
Hu, L., Jin, J., & Li, D. (2025) · International Conference on Mechatronics Technology and Intelligent Manufacturing (ICMTIM) · doi:10.1109/icmtim65484.2025.11040506
“By leveraging DINOv2 [4], a vision foundation model pretrained on massive data, we extract high-quality semantic features for disentanglement.”
Connecting dreams with visual brainstorming instruction
Sun, Y., Li, B., Zhuge, M., Fan, D.-P., Khan, S., Khan, F. S., & Koike, H. (2025) · Visual Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44267-025-00081-2 · Cited by 1
“With the obtained advice, we employ it as a text prompt to guide the grounding DINO [63] model to identify the pertinent spatial areas of the reconstructed image Y rec .”
Dust Detection on Solar Panels Using DINOv2 with Multi-Head Self-Attention
Hamdi, A., Noura, H., & Azar, J. (2025) · International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC) · doi:10.1109/iwcmc65282.2025.11059675
“This makes it suitable for practical applications where computational resources are limited [17].”
Faure, G., Soglio, D. B. D., Patey, N., Oligny, L. L., Girard, S., & Séoud, L. (2025) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110634
MSPKD: multi spatial projectors for knowledge distillation in semantic segmentation
Park, Y., Hwang, J., Jeong, S.-M., & Lee, E. C. (2025) · Machine Vision and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00138-025-01721-9
“Furthermore, the introduction of transformer-based architectures and the availability of large-scale datasets have facilitated the development of high-performing models such as Swin TransformerV2 [ 4], DINOv2 [ 5 ], and Mask2Former [ 6].”
Xu, Y., Teutsch, B., Zeng, W., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.07.06.25330963
Aquatic Prompt Segmentation: Training-Free Open-World Waterbody Segmentation Using Foundation ModelsPreprint
ZHAO, J., Yabuki, N., & Fukuda, T. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5346801
Zhu, J., Liu, Y., Wang, H., Chen, M., Li, N., Cao, G., Zhong, R., & Zhu, H. (2026) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr14132045
a Critical Survey on Content-Based & Semantic Image Retrieval – Abstract
Haji-Esmaeili, M. M., & Montazer, G. (2025) · Archives de l'Institut d'Hessarek. · doi:10.61186/jsdp.22.1.113
Multimodal Transformer Models for Human Action Classification
Varga, Z., Mascaro, E. V., Sliwowski, D., & Lee, D. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92011-0_5
Transduction to induction: Unsupervised representation learning based on rank information
Biotto, D. W., Valem, L. P., Pedronette, D. C. G., & Salvadeo, D. H. P. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.131010 · Cited by 1
Augmenting and mixing Transformers with synthetic data for image captioning
Caffagni, D., Cornia, M., Baraldi, L., & Cucchiara, R. (2025) · Image and Vision Computing · doi:10.1016/j.imavis.2025.105661
Interpretation of cellular tomograms
Volkmann, N. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-18829-9.00006-2
Pérez-Girón, J. C., Navarro, C. J., Elghouat, A., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.07.23.666097
Modal Mimicking Knowledge Distillation for monocular three-dimensional object detection
Yang, M., Qi, Y., Xiong, B., Zhang, Z., & Liu, Y. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.111821
Semantic-aware style transfer for unsupervised aircraft pose estimation
Luo, Q., Zhou, D., & Wei, Z. (2025) · Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s44443-025-00171-7
Petrie, T. C., Samatham, R. V., Webster, D. E., & Leachman, S. A. (2025) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-05552-1
“In contrast, modern machine learning architectures using vision transformer backbones for image processing tasks including classification rely on hundreds of millions of images 7,8 .”
Detection of Foreign Objects in Compost Fertilizer
Studer, R., Melchior, M., Schreiber, R., et al. (2025) · IEEE Swiss Conference on Data Science (SDS) · doi:10.1109/sds66131.2025.00011
“DINOv2, a self-supervised vision foundation model developed by Meta, is pre-trained on a large-scale dataset of 142 million RGB images, enabling the extraction of high-quality visual representations without reliance on labeled data [8].”
A Dual-Branch Visual Place Recognition Method Based on Semantic Fusion
Wang, H., Jia, Q., Yang, A., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-9891-2_34
Kim, D., Lee, S., Park, S., & Kim, H. (2025) · Journal of Broadcast Engineering · doi:10.5909/jbe.2025.30.4.589
Pre-manipulation alignment prediction with parallel deep state-space and transformer models
Kambara, M., & Sugiura, K. (2025) · Advanced Robotics · doi:10.1080/01691864.2025.2532610
“Here, h txt and h img are the language features obtained by embedding x txt using Stella en 1.5B v5 [55] and the image features extracted from x img using DINOv2 [56], respectively.”
Parts2Whole: Generalizable Multi-Part Portrait Customization
Fan, H., Huang, Z., Wang, L., Chen, H., Yin, L., & Sheng, L. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2025.3597037
“Specifically, we leverage the CLIP image encoder [37], DINOv2 [66], and ControlNet [65] as feature extractors and apply the same training settings for fair comparison.”
Steinmetz, C., & Yoder, J. A. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Electro/Information Technology · doi:10.1109/eit64391.2025.11103620
“Transformer models [10] have demonstrated exceptional capabilities across a wide range of sequence processing tasks, encompassing modalities such as text, vision [3], audio [9], and spatiotemporal [8] data.”
Referring Semantic Segmentation With Implicit Patch Aligned Distillation Learning
Liu, X., Luo, Y., & Sun, W. (2025) · IET Image Processing · doi:10.1049/ipr2.70175
Representation Alignment For Deepfake Detection
Li, Z., Tang, W., Gao, S., Wang, Y., & Wang, S. (2025) · International Conference on Computing and Artificial Intelligence (ICCAI) · doi:10.1109/iccai66501.2025.00109
“Specifically, we align the high-quality semantic representations extracted from pretrained self-supervised visual models (such as DINOv2 [29]) with the feature representations of deepfake detectors, enabling the detectors to leverage richer semantic information.”
Zhu, J., Liu, Y., Wang, H., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5396085
Human-like monocular depth biases in deep neural networks
Kubota, Y., & Fukiage, T. (2025) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013020 · Cited by 1
Bi-granularity balance learning for long-tailed image classification
Ren, N., Li, X., Wu, Y., et al. (2025) · Computer Vision and Image Understanding · doi:10.1016/j.cviu.2025.104469
Selective Multiple Classifiers for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation
Guo, Z., Wu, D., Gao, C., & Sang, N. (2025) · CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology · doi:10.1049/cit2.70042 · Cited by 1
WOODWORK: A deep-learning based framework for woodpecker damage detection in powerline inspection
Tran, D. K., Nguyen, V. N., Wickstrøm, K., & Kampffmeyer, M. (2025) · International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems · doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2025.110900 · Cited by 2
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
