The DOI matches its DataCite record; 139 of the 139 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 12 of the 40 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision
Open accessAbstract
The recent breakthroughs in natural language processing for model pretraining on large quantities of data have opened the way for similar foundation models in computer vision. These models could greatly simplify the use of images in any system by producing all-purpose visual features, i.e., features that work across image distributions and tasks without finetuning. This work shows that existing pretraining methods, especially self-supervised methods, can produce such features if trained on enough curated data from diverse sources. We revisit existing approaches and combine different techniques to scale our pretraining in terms of data and model size. Most of the technical contributions aim at accelerating and stabilizing the training at scale. In terms of data, we propose an automatic pipeline to build a dedicated, diverse, and curated image dataset instead of uncurated data, as typically done in the self-supervised literature. In terms of models, we train a ViT model (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020) with 1B parameters and distill it into a series of smaller models that surpass the best available all-purpose features, OpenCLIP (Ilharco et al., 2021) on most of the benchmarks at image and pixel levels.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
DINOv2 shows that self-supervised pretraining on a curated 142M-image dataset can produce general-purpose visual features competitive with weakly supervised models. Its ViT-g/14 backbone and distilled smaller variants perform strongly on image and pixel tasks without task-specific fine-tuning.
Key findings
- On ImageNet-1k linear probing, DINOv2 ViT-g/14 reaches 86.5% top-1, exceeding OpenCLIP ViT-G/14 (86.2%) and EVA-CLIP ViT-g/14 (86.4%), and improving over iBOT ViT-L/16 (82.3%) by 4.2 points; kNN is 83.5%, ReaL 89.6%, and V2 78.4%.
- Dense and retrieval tasks also improve: ViT-g/14 with multiscale linear segmentation gets 53.0 mIoU on ADE20k, 81.0 on Cityscapes, and 86.2 on Pascal VOC; depth DPT RMSE is 0.279 on NYUd versus OpenCLIP’s 0.414; retrieval reaches 52.3 mAP on Oxford-Hard and 82.6 mAP on Paris-Hard.
- Ablations show the KoLeo regularizer raises Oxford-M retrieval from 55.6 to 63.9 mAP, masked image modeling raises ADE-20k segmentation from 44.2 to 47.1 mIoU, and distillation from ViT-g improves ViT-L over scratch on all 12 benchmarks.
- Curated LVD-142M beats uncurated data on most benchmarks (e.g., INet-1k 85.8 vs 83.3, iNat2018 82.3 vs 68.0, iNat2021 86.4 vs 76.4) and beats ImageNet-22k on all but ImageNet-1k.
Methods
- Data: an automatic pipeline starts from 1.2B unique web images, applies deduplication, and retrieves images using self-supervised ViT-H/16 embeddings with cosine similarity, k-means, and Faiss, producing LVD-142M (142M images) in under two days on 20 nodes with 8 V100-32GB GPUs.
- Training: discriminative self-supervised learning combines DINO image-level and iBOT patch-level objectives with Sinkhorn-Knopp centering, a KoLeo regularizer, separate projection heads, and a short 518×518 high-resolution phase; ViT-g/14 has 1.1B parameters, with efficiency from FlashAttention, sequence packing, stochastic depth, and FSDP, and smaller models distilled from ViT-g.
- Evaluation: frozen features are assessed with linear probes and kNN on classification, segmentation, depth, retrieval, video, and fairness benchmarks, compared against self-supervised and weakly supervised baselines.
Limitations
- The paper states fairness gaps: on Dollar Street, Africa performance is 25.7% below Europe and high-income households are 31.7% above low-income; harmful label associations were rare, but a more thorough bias evaluation may reveal flaws.
- The paper states its carbon estimate covers only GPU electricity and excludes manufacturing and disposal; the whole project is estimated at 0.5k–1k tCO2eq, with one ViT-g pretraining at 3.7 tCO2eq.
- The text makes evident that evaluation centers on frozen linear probes and curated benchmarks, and the data pipeline retrieves from curated datasets, so coverage may be shaped by those sources; some tasks where text supervision helps (e.g., SUN, Cars) still lag OpenCLIP.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
63 Own result · 24 Own interpretation · 18 No basis given · 13 Sources not found · 10 Own method · 5 Not checked yet · 4 Supported · 4 Partly supported · 3 No full text of the sources · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“This leads to approximately 50% reduction in communication costs compared to the float32 gradient all-reduce operation used in DistributedDataParallel (DDP), which is used in other self-supervised pretraining methods (Caron et al., 2021;Zhou et al., 2022a).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Fully-Sharded Data Parallel (FSDP).
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Caron et al., 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The compute-requirements section (p. 9) reports DINO training time and GPU memory, not communication costs. Searches for FSDP, DistributedDataParallel, float32 gradient all-reduce, and the claimed 50% reduction found no passage in our copy establishing either the comparison or DDP's use in this method. (LLM, conf=0.75)
- Not matchedcites Zhou et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Some efforts on scaling these approaches beyond ImageNet-1k have been attempted (Caron et al., 2019;Goyal et al., 2021;2022a), but they focused on uncurated datasets, which typically lead to a significant drop in the quality of the features.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Caron et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 1) says previous work using non-curated raw data reported degraded feature quality. It does not establish that the drop is typically significant; the Introduction (p. 2) also reports that this paper’s approach surpassed features trained without labels on curated datasets. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites Goyal et al., 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.4 (p. 7) reports a significant drop for features from uncurated pretraining when they are frozen and evaluated on ImageNet, compared with features pretrained on curated, ImageNet-aligned data. That specific result does not establish that uncurated datasets typically reduce feature quality: the Introduction (p. 2) reports better performance than an ImageNet-supervised model on several downstream tasks. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites Goyal et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This saves memory and compute in proportion approximately equal to the drop rate, thanks to specific fused kernels.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Efficient stochastic depth.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Huang et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3 (p. 6) says bypassing ResBlocks avoids forward-backward computation and reports approximately 25% training-time savings under its linear-decay setting; Section 4 (p. 10) reports a corresponding measured speedup. The cited paper does not establish proportional memory savings or attribute the savings to fused kernels, so those parts of the citing sentence are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a consequence, the training procedure scales more efficiently than DDP with float16 autocast when scaling the number of GPU nodes.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Fully-Sharded Data Parallel (FSDP).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, Pytorch-FSDP mixed-precision is superior to DDP with autocast in virtually all cases we encountered.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Fully-Sharded Data Parallel (FSDP).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Our experiments did not show significant differences in final accuracy, and our ViT-g backbone counts 1.1B parameters.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Fast and memory-efficient attention.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zhai et al., 2022 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“At scale, we observed that the opposite is true, and we therefore use two separate heads in all our experiments.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 4 Discriminative Self-supervised Pre-training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhou et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this work, a naive clustering approach works reasonably well to resolve this issue.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The KoLeo loss term improves nearest-neighbor search tasks (e.g.retrieval), and the MIM loss improves patch-level tasks (e.g.segmentation).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.2 Pretraining Data Source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the size of models grow, training on LVD-142M becomes more beneficial than training on ImageNet-22k.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.3 Model Size and Data
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
- It may state two separate claims as one. 36
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Our version is on par with or better than the original on all cases considered, while covering more use-cases and hardware.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Fast and memory-efficient attention.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dao et al., 2022 source
The source identifies and describes the original FlashAttention in the Introduction (§1). The citing authors’ comparison of their own version with that original—including performance, use-cases, and hardware—is their own claim, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Of particular interest, Goyal et al. (2021) have also shown that these methods benefit from scaling in model size given enough pretrained data.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Scaling self-supervised pretraining.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Goyal et al., 2021 source
In §4.1 (p. 4), the authors report that increasing model capacity has a greater effect for self-supervised pretrained models than for models trained from scratch, and confirm the gain with uncurated pretraining data. The Related Work (§2, p. 2) explains why large architectures matter for discriminative self-supervised learning on large datasets. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“These approaches are conceptually closer to pretext tasks such as language modeling and can capture information at the image and pixel level (Caron et al., 2021).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Caron et al., 2021 source
The Introduction (p. 1) compares self-supervised vision pretraining with language-modeling pretext tasks. It reports image-classification performance, while §4.2.2 (p. 7) shows that the learned features retain spatial information and support segmentation, consistent with capturing information at both the image and pixel level. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Additionally, the features output by self-supervised models have been shown to exhibit various useful properties, and have enabled enabled a wide variety of applications (Amir et al., 2022;Tumanyan et al., 2022;Ofri-Amar et al., 2023;Hamilton et al., 2022).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Amir et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Tumanyan et al., 2022 source
The Introduction (p. 1) describes useful properties of self-supervised DINO-ViT features and lists applications including image retrieval, object segmentation, and copy detection. The Conclusions (p. 8) add semantic appearance transfer as an application of those features. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites Ofri-Amar et al., 2023 source
The Introduction (p. 2) describes features from a self-supervised DINO-ViT as effective visual descriptors that capture localized semantic information and underpin the paper’s image-alignment method. The DINO-ViT Features section (p. 3) also describes their use across applications including segmentation, object discovery, and transfer learning. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Patterson et al. (2021) propose a methodology to report an estimation of the carbon emitted during the training of a model based on the specifics of the data center and its power grid.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Patterson et al. (2021) source
Section 2.5 (p. 5) gives formulas for estimating training energy use and CO₂e emissions using datacenter PUE and emissions per kWh. It also explains how to obtain the datacenter’s emissions figure or estimate the regional energy mix, supporting the claim that the methodology accounts for the datacenter and its power grid. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This methodology was used in previous work in natural language processing (Strubell et al., 2019;Touvron et al., 2023) to establish an apple-to-apple comparison between pretraining schemes.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Strubell et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Partly supportedcites Touvron et al., 2023 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 6, p. 10, applies the same carbon-emissions formula to LLaMA, OPT, and BLOOM for a fair comparison, using a common data-center assumption. It identifies the formula as following Wu et al. (2022), however, and does not establish that it used Patterson et al. (2021)'s methodology. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“This reduces redundancy and increases diversity among images.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Data sources.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pizzi et al., 2022 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The whole processing is distributed on a compute cluster of 20 nodes equipped with 8 V100-32GB GPUs and takes less than two days to produce the LVD-142M dataset.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Self-supervised image retrieval.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“With the same hardware, compared to the iBOT implementation, the DINOv2 code runs around 2× faster using only 1/3 of the memory.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 5 Efficient implementation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhou et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In terms of models, we train a ViT model (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) with 1B parameters and distill it into a series of smaller models that surpass the best available general-purpose features, OpenCLIP (Ilharco et al., 2021) on most of the benchmarks at image and pixel levels.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ilharco et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our family of models drastically improves over the previous state of the art in self-supervised learning and reaches performance comparable with weaklysupervised features.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We choose N = 4 as it provides a good tradeoff in that sense.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Self-supervised image retrieval.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These improvements make our approach around 2× faster and require 3× less memory than similar discriminative self-supervised methods, allowing us to leverage longer training with larger batch sizes.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, their features require supervised finetuning, while our features perform well out of the box.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Intra-image self-supervised training.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites He et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only LayerScale and Stochastic Depth incur a performance drop in linear probing but significantly improve the training stability in our experience.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.1 Improved Training Recipe
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also see that training on our curated data increases the performances on domains that are not used for the curation process (INaturalist 2018, 2021 and Places205), proving that scale and diversity can benefit unseen domains.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.2 Pretraining Data Source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generally, we observe that each component improves the performance on either k-NN or linear probing and even both in most cases.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.1 Improved Training Recipe
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This term is critical for dense prediction tasks, leading to almost 3% performance improvement.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.4 Loss Components
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhou et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is true both when using models at resolution 224 and 448.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, a ViT-g trained on LVD-142M matches the performance on ImageNet-1k of a model trained on ImageNet-22k while significantly outperforming it on the other benchmarks.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.3 Model Size and Data
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, training at high resolution for only 10k iterations at the end of the training is almost as good and only requiring a fraction of the compute.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 6.6 Impact of Resolution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For comparison, retraining an OpenCLIP ViT-L or OpenCLIP ViT-G would require 22.4 MWh and 118.9 MWh, respectively, if run in the same data center.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This carbon footprint represents in the order of 200k GPU-days.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our models show very good performance on all datasets and for all setups.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Semantic segmentation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though these benchmarks favor text-guided pretraining, our features are still competitive with OpenCLIP on most classification benchmarks, with the exception of a few datasets, especially SUN (-5.3%) and Cars (-4.7%).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.2 Additional Image and Video classification Benchmarks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 12 transfer classification benchmarks favor text-guided pretraining.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, we estimate the footprint of the whole project to be between 0.5k and 1k tCO 2 eq using the same grid as presented above 3 .”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While not perfect, the linear segmentation model using our DINOv2 backbone produces good results and behaves much better than the OpenCLIP one under this evaluation setup.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Semantic Segmentation and Depth Estimation.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We show that a ViT-L model distilled from a frozen ViT-g outperforms a the same model trained from scratch on all benchmarks, sometimes even outperforming the distillation target.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 10 Future work and Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also observe that the model is robust to style (image versus drawing), and to large variation of poses (see the elephant).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Out-of-distribution generalization.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Our model is slightly fairer across regions and incomes than the SEERv2 model and significantly better than the supervised baseline reported by Goyal et al. (2022a).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 8.1 Geographical Fairness
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Goyal et al. (2022a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“first, our unsupervised foreground / background detector, based on detecting the highest variance direction, performs very well and is capable of delineating the boundary of the main object in the picture.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Out-of-distribution generalization.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the other components correspond to”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Out-of-distribution generalization.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, a single pre-training of a ViT-g model (22k GPU-hours) emits 3.7 tons of CO 2 eq, while a finetuning on ImageNet-1k (1k GPU-hours) emits 0.2 tons.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our pipeline does not require any metadata or text and directly works with images, as shown in Fig. 3.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 3 Data Processing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Increasing image resolution is key to pixellevel downstream tasks such as segmentation or detection, where small objects disappear at low resolutions.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 4 Discriminative Self-supervised Pre-training
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We evaluate the quality of features by training a simple classifier over a frozen backbone, and do not perform finetuning of the backbone weights.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, we also see that the performance increase on the alternative test sets is larger for our method, indicating stronger generalization.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is explained by the lack of control over the data quality and diversity, which are essential to produce good features.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike these works, we use no pretrained encoders, metadata nor supervision to filter images and leverage visual similarity between images.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Automatic data curation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, these image encoders require aligned text-image corpora and hence, do not offer the flexibility of their text counterparts, that is, to learn from raw data alone.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also remove near-duplicates of images contained in the test or validation set of any benchmark used in this work.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Data sources.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The KoLeo regularizer derives from the Kozachenko-Leonenko differential entropy estimator (see Beirlant et al. (1997); Delattre & Fournier (2017)) and encourages a uniform span of the features within a batch.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 4 Discriminative Self-supervised Pre-training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Beirlant et al. (1997)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Delattre & Fournier (2017) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, training at high resolution is time and memory demanding, and instead, we increase the resolution of images to 518 × 518 during a short period at the end of pretraining.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 4 Discriminative Self-supervised Pre-training
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For all models, we run the linear evaluation using our code, after making sure that our numbers match those reported in technical reports and papers.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This form of text-guided pretraining limits the information that can be retained about the image since captions only approximate the rich information in images, and complex pixel-level information may not surface with this supervision.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 1 Introduction
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Captions only approximate the rich information in images, and complex pixel-level information may not surface with text supervision.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As DINOv2 leads to features that are strong in both the linear and finetuning settings, a strong property of our approach is that finetuning is optional.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These methods provide performant frozen features on standard benchmarks like ImageNet (Russakovsky et al., 2015), but they are hard to scale to larger model sizes (Chen et al., 2021).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Discriminative self-supervised learning.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Russakovsky et al., 2015 source
- Not matchedcites Chen et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MLP heads gradients are reduced in float32 to avoid training instabilities”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Fully-Sharded Data Parallel (FSDP).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Following previous work, we use a linear model for simplicity, ensuring a reproducible evaluation, despite the fact that classes may not be linearly separable.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to report this additional validation performance, for all models, we run the evaluation with our code.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.1 ImageNet Classification
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ruan et al. (2023) recommend to replace the teacher softmax-centering step of DINO and iBot by the Sinkhorn-Knopp (SK) batch normalization of SwAV (Caron et al., 2020).”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 4 Discriminative Self-supervised Pre-training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ruan et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked yetcites Caron et al., 2020 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“We can attribute the strong performance of the DINOv2 family of models to several factors: i) an improved training recipe with better hyperparameters and regularization (Table 1), ii) a larger model scale with improved results regardless of the data used for training (Fig. 4), iii) a larger dataset (Fig. 4) and iv) the distillation process that makes smaller models benefit from the performance of”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 10 Future work and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fig. 4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This exhibits the ability of our model to transfer across domains and understand relations between similar parts of different objects.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 10 Future work and Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is interesting to see that our features perform well across task granularities, both at the category-level and instance-level.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 7.3 Instance Recognition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We can attribute the strong performance of the DINOv2 family of models to several factors: i) an improved training recipe with better hyperparameters and regularization (Table 1), ii) a larger model scale with improved results regardless of the data used for training (Fig. 4), iii) a larger dataset (Fig. 4) and iv) the distillation process that makes smaller models benefit from the performance of”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 10 Future work and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Table 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This estimate only considers the GPUs' electricity consumption and ignores other emissions, such as their manufacturing and disposal.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 9 Estimating the Environmental Impact of Training our Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We can attribute the strong performance of the DINOv2 family of models to several factors: i) an improved training recipe with better hyperparameters and regularization (Table 1), ii) a larger model scale with improved results regardless of the data used for training (Fig. 4), iii) a larger dataset (Fig. 4) and iv) the distillation process that makes smaller models benefit from the performance of”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 10 Future work and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fig. 5
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Captions only approximate the rich information in images, and complex pixel-level information may not surface with text supervision.
“This form of text-guided pretraining limits the information that can be retained about the image since captions only approximate the rich information in images, and complex pixel-level information may not surface with this supervision.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most SSL methods were developed using ImageNet-1k validation performance as a debugging signal.
“Because most SSL methods were developped using ImageNet-1k validation performance as a debugging signal, we also report the top-1 accuracy on ImageNet-ReaL and ImageNet-V2.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 12 transfer classification benchmarks favor text-guided pretraining.
“Even though these benchmarks favor text-guided pretraining, our features are still competitive with OpenCLIP on most classification benchmarks, with the exception of a few datasets, especially SUN (-5.3%) and Cars (-4.7%).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Non-Human and Crime meta-categories are harmful.
“Non-Human and Crime are considered harmful.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Self-reported gender, skin tone, and age labels are accurate.
“images of people of different gender, skin tone, and age (all self-reported).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Foundation Models (FMs) [23, 35, 37] - generic models trained on web-scale datasets - have demonstrated remarkable zero-shot performance and can be quickly adapted to various downstream tasks with few additional tuning cost.”
From Towards More General Video-based Deepfake Detection through Facial Component Guided Adaptation for Foundation Model (2024) · cites this paper as [35]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Previous works, however, tend to focus on understanding evaluation using probe-based evaluation or visual question answering tasks after aligning with a large-language model.”
From V-JEPA 2: Self-Supervised Video Models Enable Understanding, Prediction and Planning (2025) · cites this paper as Oquab et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“having high quality data outweighs the quantity of data”
From Genie: Generative Interactive Environments (2024) · cites this paper as Oquab et al. (2023)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A major advantage of this strategy is that the DINO model, pretrained on ImageNet, has been exposed to a very diverse set of natural images, which allows the model to develop a more sophisticated understanding of image structure than would be possible through studying astronomical images alone.”
From A Semi-Supervised Learning Method for the Identification of Bad Exposures in Large Imaging Surveys (2026) · cites this paper as Oquab et al. 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The semantic awareness of DINOv2 is also especially useful in creating a global coherence to evaluate whether scenes make sense wholistically.”
From MTReD: 3D Reconstruction Dataset for Fly-over Videos of Maritime Domain (2025) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“While DINOv2 was not explicitly trained for the medical domain, it has shown strong generalization, making it effective for general tasks, including those in medical imaging.”
From ConfIC-RCA: Statistically Grounded Efficient Estimation of Segmentation Quality (2025) · cites this paper as [54]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Because uncurated and unbalanced data can hinder model performance (Assran et al., 2022; Oquab et al., 2023), we filter YT1B by adapting an existing retrieval-based curation pipeline to handle videos.”
From V-JEPA 2: Self-Supervised Video Models Enable Understanding, Prediction and Planning (2025) · cites this paper as Oquab et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The latter is a much larger (300 million parameters) Vision Transformer21 trained at 0.5 mpp resolution on over 100,000 WSIs from 22 major tissue types using self-distillation and masked modeling22.”
From Generating dermatopathology reports from gigapixel whole slide images with HistoGPT (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Similar to Oquab et al. (2023), we ensure that none of the videos from the target validation sets are contained in the initial, uncurated data pool.”
From V-JEPA 2: Self-Supervised Video Models Enable Understanding, Prediction and Planning (2025) · cites this paper as Oquab et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The OpenVLA model architecture consists of a fused vision backbone that combines the SigLIP [9] and DinoV2 [25] encoders.”
From OpenVLA: An Open-Source Vision-Language-Action Model (2024) · cites this paper as [25]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Models such as DINOv2 [7], Vision Transformers (ViT) [8], and Swin Transformers [9] have demonstrated outstanding transfer learning performance across a wide range of domains, often achieving state-of-the-art results with only minimal fine-tuning.”
From Trustworthy Celestial Eye: Calibrated and Robust Planetary Classification via Self-Supervised Vision Transformers (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Oquab et al. [7] proposed DINOv2, a self-supervised vision foundation model trained on 142 million curated natural images that demonstrates strong transfer learning capabilities across various downstream tasks.”
From Trustworthy Celestial Eye: Calibrated and Robust Planetary Classification via Self-Supervised Vision Transformers (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“we propose that a DINOv2 [8] based perception score be used, and argue that as DINOv2 is trained using internet-scale levels of data, additional training data is not required.”
From MTReD: 3D Reconstruction Dataset for Fly-over Videos of Maritime Domain (2025) · cites this paper as [8]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“but the model's effectiveness on scientific imaging domains with distinct statistical properties remains underexplored.”
From Trustworthy Celestial Eye: Calibrated and Robust Planetary Classification via Self-Supervised Vision Transformers (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“When compared to LPIPS, it demonstrates superior ability in evaluating scene completion while retaining equal sensitivity to scene accuracy”
From MTReD: 3D Reconstruction Dataset for Fly-over Videos of Maritime Domain (2025) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“significantly better on high-income households than low-income ones, with a difference of 31.7%.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Income buckets Regions
Reported 31.7 · recomputed 23.1
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“However, we still observe a significant difference between regions, particularly in Africa, where our model performance drops by 25.7% compared to Europe.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > 8.1 Geographical Fairness
Reported 25.7 · recomputed 15.7
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Automatic data curation.
“Unlike these works, we use no pretrained encoders, metadata nor supervision to filter images and leverage visual similarity between images.”
§ DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision > Self-supervised image retrieval.
“In order to do this, we first compute an image embedding using a self-supervised ViT-H/16 network pretrained on ImageNet-22k, and use cosine-similarity as a distance measure between images.”
Citations
Cites
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database
Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., & Fei-Fei, L. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206848 · Cited by 65,333
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325
An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale
Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.11929 · Cited by 47,472
ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge
Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., et al. (2015) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y · Cited by 39,380 · cited 2×
“However, despite their potential to learn general-purpose features, most of the advances in self-supervised learning were made in the context of pretraining on a small curated dataset, ImageNet-1k (Russakovsky et al., 2015).”
BackgroundMethodLearning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images
Krizhevsky, A. (2024) · doi:10.57702/zp44cu3g · Cited by 23,889
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
Encoder-Decoder with Atrous Separable Convolution for Semantic Image Segmentation
Chen, L.-C., Zhu, Y., Papandreou, G., Schroff, F., & Adam, H. (2018) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01234-2_49 · Cited by 20,054
The pascal visual object classes (VOC) challenge
Everingham, M., Van Gool, L., Williams, C. K. I., Winn, J., & Zisserman, A. (2010) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-009-0275-4 · Cited by 19,599
Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision
Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00020 · Cited by 15,293
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [62]62. Dan Hendrycks, Kevin Zhao, Steven Basart, Jacob Steinhardt, and Dawn Song. Natural adversarial exam- ples. In CVPR, 2021b.
- [113]113. Hugo Touvron, Andrea Vedaldi, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. Fixing the train-test resolution discrep- ancy. In NeurIPS, 2019.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–700 of 1,090
Memory-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Quantized Diffusion Model
Ryu, H., Lim, S., & Shim, H. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72640-8_20 · Cited by 5
“To measure subject fidelity, we evaluated DINO-I [37] and CLIP-I [16] scores, while for prompt fidelity, we measured CLIP-T scores.”
MethodAutomatic Culture-free Detection of Bacteria from Blood for Rapid Sepsis DiagnosticsPreprint
Miguélez, M. H. M., Osaid, M., Hallström, E., Kaya, K., Larsson, J., Kandavalli, V. K., Wählby, C., Elf, J., & van der Wijngaart, W. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.05.23.595289 · Cited by 4
“We trained and compared three similarly sized models: ResNet 18[42] from 2016 (11.2M parameters, 8.4 GFLOPs), EfficientNet B2[43] from 2021 (7.7M parameters 3.2 GFLOPs), and the more modern foundation model DinoV2 Small Patch 14[44] from 2023 (21.8M parameters 24.8 GFLOPs).”
InfluentialecPath detects ecDNA in tumors from histopathology imagesPreprint
Choudhury, M., Liu, L., Yadav, A., Chapman, O. S., Ahmadi, Z., Younis, R., Sharma, C., Goel, N., Sridhar, S., Kenkre, R., et al. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.11.13.623494 · Cited by 4
fruit-SALAD: A Style Aligned Artwork Dataset to reveal similarity perception in image embeddings
Ohm, T., Karjus, A., Tamm, M. V., & Schich, M. (2025) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-04529-4 · Cited by 4
DINOSim : Training‐Free Semantic Segmentation on Microscopy Images
González-Marfil, A., Gómez‐de‐Mariscal, E., & Arganda‐Carreras, I. (2026) · Microscopy Research and Technique · doi:10.1101/2025.03.09.642092 · Cited by 4
Unifying the Electron Microscopy Multiverse through a Large-scale Foundation ModelPreprint
He, L., Shi, R., Wang, W., Fang, G., Cai, Y., & Ма, Л. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.04.13.648639 · Cited by 5
Agentic Lab: An Agentic-physical AI system for cell and organoid experimentation and manufacturingPreprint
Wang, W., Swain, S., Lee, J., Lin, Z., Canales, B., Aljović, A., Liu, Y., Li, Q., Marin‐Llobet, A., Liu, M., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.11.11.686354 · Cited by 10
Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress?
Ren, R., Basart, S., Khoja, A., Gatti, A., Phan, L., Yin, X., Mazeika, M., Pan, A., Mukobi, G., Kim, R. H., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21792 · Cited by 10
Unveiling the Lack of LVLM Robustness to Fundamental Visual Variations: Why and Path Forward
Fan, Z., Wang, Y., Polisetty, S., & Fung, Y. R. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1037 · Cited by 4
Approximating Human-Level 3D Visual Inferences With Deep Neural Networks
O’Connell, T. P., Bonnen, T., Friedman, Y., Tewari, A., Sitzmann, V., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Kanwisher, N. (2025) · Open Mind · doi:10.1162/opmi_a_00189 · Cited by 4
Pose Estimation Focusing on One Object Based on Grasping Quality in Bin Picking
Yoshida, R., & Tasaki, T. (2025) · Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics · doi:10.20965/jrm.2025.p0301 · Cited by 3
Mismatched: Evaluating the Limits of Image Matching Approaches and Benchmarks
Bonilla, S., Vece, C. D., Daher, R., Ju, X., Stoyanov, D. V., Vasconcelos, F., & Bano, S. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-91989-3_8 · Cited by 5
Marini, N., Marchesin, S., Ferrís, L. B., Püttmann, S., Wodziński, M., Fratti, R., Podareanu, D., Caputo, A., Boytcheva, S., Vatrano, S., et al. (2025) · Journal of Pathology Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jpi.2025.100462 · Cited by 7
SFANet: Semantic feature aware for domain generalized semantic segmentation
Qiao, Y., Guan, Y., Yang, W., & Yang, J. D. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.111827 · Cited by 4
Wang, C., Muzakky, H., Chung, Y.-P., Lai, P.-J., & Chao, T. (2025) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2025.103742 · Cited by 3
MedAlmighty: enhancing disease diagnosis with large vision model distillation
Ren, Y., Gu, Z., & Liu, W. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1527980 · Cited by 3
“…particularly Vision Transformer (ViT)—and are trained using diverse paradigms, including supervised learning [e.g., DeiT-III (Touvron et al., 2022)], text-image contrastive learning (e.g., OpenCLIP), and self-supervised learning [e.g., DINO (Caron et al., 2021), DINOv2 (Oquab et al., 2023)].”
Wang, S., Li, L., Xuan, D., et al. (2025) · IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2025.3597685 · Cited by 3
Factorized neural radiance field for autonomous driving
Zhang, F., Chen, Q., & Zhou, X. (2025) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2025.07.023 · Cited by 3
A feedforward mechanism for human-like contour integration
Doshi, F. R., Konkle, T., & Alvarez, G. A. (2025) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013391 · Cited by 4
“Indeed, research indicates a bias in natural image distributions toward relatively straight edges, often with orientation differences peaking near 20 degrees between adjacent elements [46,47]—a value that is intriguingly comparable to the inductive bias that provided the optimal alignment between…”
Automating the Search for Artificial Life With Foundation Models
Kumar, A., Lu, C., Kirsch, L., Tang, Y., Stanley, K. O., Isola, P., & Ha, D. (2025) · Artificial Life · doi:10.1162/artl.a.8 · Cited by 5
CMaP-SAM: Contraction mapping prior for SAM-driven few-shot segmentation
Chen, S., Meng, F., Lei, L., et al. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.131816 · Cited by 3
Fully self-supervised physics-aware holographic depth estimation
Madali, N., & Taabane, I. (2025) · Applied Optics · doi:10.1364/ao.576759 · Cited by 4
Hoq, M. E., Tarbox, L., Johann, D. J., Larson‐Prior, L. J., & Prior, F. (2025) · Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10278-025-01748-4 · Cited by 3
An Introduction to Pathology Foundation Models
Veremis, B. M., Chen, S., & Campanella, G. S. V. (2026) · Head and Neck Pathology · doi:10.1007/s12105-025-01878-9 · Cited by 3
“…from ImageNet [27]) has evolved into DINOv2 (which is trained on a dataset of 142 million images, improves performance at scale, and has more parameters than the original) [28] and then DINOv3 (which is trained on a dataset of 1.7 billion images with models of up to 7 billion parameters) [29].”
InfluentialSanchez, M., Bourriez, N., Bendidi, I., Cohen, E., Svatko, I., Nery, E. D., Tajmouati, H., Bollot, G., Calzone, L., & Genovesio, A. (2026) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-025-09500-y · Cited by 5
“These encoders may be pretrained on natural images(e.g.,ResNet50 44 ,DINOv2 45 )oronmicroscopyimages(e.g.,ChAda-ViT 46 , OpenPhenom 47 ) (see “ Methods ” ).”
Fair Foundation Models for Medical Image Analysis: Challenges and Perspectives
Queiroz, D., Carlos, A., Anjos, A., & Berton, L. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare · doi:10.1145/3793542 · Cited by 9
“The figure highlights pronounced disparities in data representation, underscoring its critical role in the development of equitable FMs. Notably, a limited number of countries account for the majority of available medical imaging data.”
Xiang, K., Shi, D., & Zhu, X. (2026) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2026.1826962 · Cited by 4
“The supplementary baseline is a lightweight DINOv2-S/14 linear-probe ensemble ( fi ve linear heads on shared frozen features), which enables uncertainty decomposition but is acknowledged as having limited diversity because all members share the same backbone representation.”
InfluentialGenerative AI for Industrial Applications: Synthetic Dataset
Sasiaowapak, T., Boonsang, S., Chuwongin, S., Tongloy, T., & Lalitrojwong, P. (2023) · doi:10.1109/icitee59582.2023.10317774 · Cited by 3
Multimodal Remote Sensing Network
Zhao, H., Chen, C., & Xia, C. (2023) · Workshop on Hyperspectral Imaging and Signal Processing: Evolution in Remote Sensing (WHISPERS) · doi:10.1109/whispers61460.2023.10430584 · Cited by 3
Kassab, E. J., Solberg, H. M., Gautam, S., et al. (2024) · doi:10.1145/3625468.3652166 · Cited by 3
CUNHA, Y. M. B. G., Gomes, B. R., Boaro, J. M. C., Moraes, D. D. S., Busson, A. J. G., Duarte, J. C., & Colcher, S. (2024) · Journal on Interactive Systems · doi:10.5753/jis.2024.4120 · Cited by 5
“…. com/c/deepfake-detection-challenge an expanded dataset to further validate our original results, applying a new self-supervised method in DINOv2 [Oquab et al ., 2024] and investigating the following research question: How do demographic classes of attributes behave within a self-supervised…”
MethodInfluentialNeRFDeformer: NeRF Transformation from a Single View via 3D Scene Flows
Tang, Z., Ren, Z., Zhao, X., Wen, B., Tremblay, J., Birchfield, S. T., & Schwing, A. G. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00980 · Cited by 3
“DINOv2 [28] uses self-supervised learning to learn a per-pixel embedding which can be used for correspondence matching.”
MethodBaek, E., Park, K., Kim, J.-Y., & Kim, H. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02104 · Cited by 3
“OpenCLIP-b/h [17] and DINOv2-b/g [26] are selected as domain-generalized versions of SwinV2.”
POA: Pre-training Once for Models of All Sizes
Zhang, Y., Guo, X., Lao, J., Yu, L., Ru, L., Wang, J., Ye, G., He, H., Chen, J., & Yang, M. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72646-0_8 · Cited by 3
Passersby-Anonymizer: Safeguard the Privacy of Passersby in Social Videos
Ma, J., Luo, H., Huang, Z., Jin, D., Wang, R., Briffa, J. A., Poh, N., & Yu, S. (2024) · IEEE International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB) · doi:10.1109/ijcb62174.2024.10744443 · Cited by 3
“While these laws protect privacy, they pose challenges for video sharing and research relying on large-scale web-crawled datasets, such as foundation models [39, 34, 30].”
BackgroundGraPix: Exploring Graph Modularity Optimization for Unsupervised Pixel Clustering
Kumar, S., Sur, A., & Baruah, R. D. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78192-6_13 · Cited by 3
B4M: Breaking Low-Rank Adapter for Making Content-Style Customization
Xu, Y., Tang, F., Cao, J., Zhang, Y., Deußen, O., Dong, W., Li, J., & Lee, T. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Graphics · doi:10.1145/3728461 · Cited by 11
“Following quantitative experiment settings of ProSpect [Zhang et al. 2023b] and ZipLoRA [Shah et al. 2024], we compare cosine similarities between CLIP [Ilharco et al. 2021] features for calculating style and prompt alignment and DINOv2 [Oquab et al. 2023] features for content.”
Ahmed, F., Arsalan, M., Al-Ali, A. K., et al. (2025) · IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS) · doi:10.1109/cbms65348.2025.00175 · Cited by 3
Lu, W., Zheng, H., Xiao, S., Xue, W., & Yang, S. (2025) · Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation · doi:10.1007/s10921-025-01235-4 · Cited by 4
“…(R-CNN), real-time detection transformer (RT-DETR) [54 ] adopts an end-to-end transformer-based object detection architecture, and self-distilled knowledge with no labels version 2 (DINOv2) [55] introduces an efficient visual Transformer training strategy that incorporates contrastive learning.”
SHREC 2025: Protein surface shape retrieval including electrostatic potential
Yacoub, T., Depenveiller, C., Tatsuma, A., Barisin, T., Rusakov, E., Göbel, U., Peng, Y., Deng, S., Kagaya, Y., Park, J. H., et al. (2025) · Computers & Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2025.104394 · Cited by 3
“We trained a classification model using a vit-giant-patch14-reg4-dinov2 encoder [67], implemented via a PyTorch and Fast.ai [68] pipeline inside Jupyter notebook.”
Akhtar, M. S., Zafar, Z., Mahmood, Z., et al. (2025) · PFG – Journal of Photogrammetry Remote Sensing and Geoinformation Science · doi:10.1007/s41064-025-00365-8 · Cited by 3
“Moving beyond sparse features, RoMa (Edstedt et al. 2024c) introduces a robust dense matching framework that integrates coarse features from DINOv2 (Oquab et al. 2023) with fine-grained convolutional features, further enhanced by a specialized Trans-former decoder.”
Efficiently Robustify Pre-Trained Models
Jain, N., Behl, H. S., Rawat, Y. S., et al. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00507 · Cited by 4
3D Neural Embedding Likelihood: Probabilistic Inverse Graphics for Robust 6D Pose Estimation
Zhou, G., Gothoskar, N., Wang, L., Tenenbaum, J. B., Gutfreund, D., Lázaro-Gredilla, M., George, D., & Mansinghka, V. K. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.01977 · Cited by 3
GeoCluster: Enhancing Visual Place Recognition in Spatial Domain on Aerial Vehicle Platforms
Chen, C., He, M., Wang, J., & Meng, Z. (2024) · IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · doi:10.1109/lra.2024.3363536 · Cited by 5
“In addition, we use the RANSAC algorithm as the verification step in Patch-NetVLAD and employ the DINOv2 [32] vision transformer as the feature extractor in AnyLoc with soft assignment map.”
MethodSelf-Supervised Deep Learning—The Next Frontier
Liu, T. Y. A., Köseoğlu, N. D., & Jones, C. K. (2024) · JAMA Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.6650 · Cited by 3
Feature propagation as self-supervision signals on graphs
Pina, O., & Vilaplana, V. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.111512 · Cited by 3
Nai, R., Wen, Z., Li, J., Li, Y., & Gao, Y. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i13.29354 · Cited by 3
“Yet contrastive pre-training methods achieve remarkable downstream performances (He et al. 2020; Caron et al. 2021; He et al. 2022; Oquab et al. 2023).”
BackgroundOpen-set 3D semantic instance maps for vision language navigation – O3D-SIM
Nanwani, L., Gupta, K., Mathur, A., Agrawal, S., Hafez, A. H. A., & Krishna, K. M. (2024) · Advanced Robotics · doi:10.1080/01691864.2024.2395926 · Cited by 4
“To improve our comprehension of the semantic aspects of object instances that have been segmented and masked within our images, we employ two models, CLIP [9] and DINOv2 [10], to derive the feature representations from the cropped images of each object.”
InfluentialFine-tuning 3D foundation models for geometric object retrieval
den Herrewegen, J. V., Tourwé, T., Ovsjanikov, M., & wyffels, F. (2024) · Computers & Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2024.103993 · Cited by 4
“This is in contrast to other fields, like 2D vision, where foundation models that are pre-trained on internet-scale datasets have been shown to lead to powerful generic features that can be used in a wide range of downstream tasks [5].”
ResultMS-DINO: Masked Self-Supervised Distributed Learning Using Vision Transformer
Park, S. J., Lee, I. J., Kim, J. W., & Ye, J. C. (2024) · IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2024.3423797 · Cited by 3
“Recentstudies[10],[11]have shownthatfeaturesdistilledthroughDINOenableacompre-hensiveunderstandingofdifferentaspectsofavisualobject, suggestingthatcomplextaskssuchasco-partsegmentationcan beeffectivelyaddressedwithoutexplicitinstructions.”
An, Y., Yang, J., Li, J., He, B., Guo, Y., & Yang, G. (2024) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra57147.2024.10610945 · Cited by 3
“We utilized a recently proposed pre-trained vision transformer Dinov2 [25] as the backbone of both modules.”
MethodA Self-Supervised Learning Pipeline for Demographically Fair Facial Attribute Classification
Ramachandran, S., & Rattani, A. (2024) · IEEE International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB) · doi:10.1109/ijcb62174.2024.10744477 · Cited by 4
“DINOV2 [33] improves on it by introducing data curation methods to improve generalization by finding images similar to curated data sets using embedding similarities.”
MethodA Few-Shot Road Extraction Method Using Customized Segment Anything Model
Guo, C., Hao, K., & Zuo, C. (2024) · International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Signal Processing (ICSP) · doi:10.1109/icsp62122.2024.10743708 · Cited by 3
Leveraging Registers in Vision Transformers for Robust Adaptation
Yellapragada, S., Thopalli, K., Narayanaswamy, V., Sakla, W., Liu, Y., Mubarka, Y., Samaras, D., & Thiagarajan, J. J. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10889287 · Cited by 3
“We compare our approach with the standard practice of combining [CLS] token with average-pooled patch tokens µ P [8].”
Boosting Vision State Space Model with Fractal Scanning
Xiao, H., Tang, L., Jiang, P.-T., Zhang, H., Chen, J., & Li, B. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i8.32934 · Cited by 5
HiLM-D: Enhancing MLLMs with Multi-scale High-Resolution Details for Autonomous Driving
Ding, X., Han, J., Xu, H., Zhang, W., & Li, X. (2025) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-025-02433-3 · Cited by 77
Self-citationTang, L., Wilkman, D., Feng, L., & Törngren, M. (2025) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113409 · Cited by 3
Single image defocus deblurring via multimodal-guided diffusion and depth-aware fusion
Li, X., Wu, S., Zhu, Q., Xie, S., & Agaian, S. С. (2025) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2025.112133 · Cited by 3
SHREC 2025: Partial retrieval benchmark
van Blokland, B. I., Aguirre, I., Sipiran, I., et al. (2025) · Computers & Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2025.104397 · Cited by 3
Xue, S., Zhu, F., Chen, J., et al. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.10.27.620535 · Cited by 3
Zhang, X., Wang, T., Yan, C., Najdawi, F., Zhou, K., Ma, Y., Cheung, Y., & Malin, B. (2024) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.12.27.24319715 · Cited by 3
TLPath predicts telomere length in human tissues from histopathology imagesPreprint
Yadav, A., Alvarez, K., Adeleye, A., Wang, Y. X., & Sinha, S. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.03.04.641489 · Cited by 3
“UNI is a large vision transformer (ViT), pretrained using the state-of-the-art self-supervised learning algorithm DINOv2(23) - a student-teacher knowledge distillation for ViT architecture.”
Ground-truthed and high-resolution drone images of the leafy spurge weed plant (Euphorbia esula)
Doherty, K. D., Gurinas, M., Samsoe, E., Casper, C., Larkin, B., Ramsey, P. W., Trabucco, B., & Salakhutdinov, R. (2025) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-05094-6 · Cited by 4
Sukhadia, S., Yadav, D., Rao, V. M., Kalra, M., Muller, K. E., & Head, J. L. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6167948/v1 · Cited by 3
Bahrami, M., Tejada-Lapuerta, A., Becker, S., G., F. S. H., & Theis, F. J. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.10.14.682419 · Cited by 4
Unsupervised Learning of Category-Level 3D Pose from Object-Centric Videos
Sommer, L., Jesslen, A., Ilg, E., et al. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02150 · Cited by 2
“Similar to our work, many recent works leverage pre-trained vision tranformers DINO [2] and DINOv2 [18] to unproject image features onto depth maps [5, 6, 37].”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialUnderstanding Physical Dynamics with Counterfactual World Modeling
Venkatesh, R., Chen, H., Feigelis, K. T., Bear, D. M., Jedoui, K., Kotar, K., Binder, F., Lee, W., Liu, S., Smith, K. A., et al. (2023) · European Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72691-0_21 · Cited by 18
“Another class of works models image similarity and dissimilarity between augmented views of an image [13,16,41,58,60,80] and different clips of a video [18,66,88] via constrastive learning.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGKA: Graph-guided knowledge association for fine-grained visual categorization
Wang, Y., Ye, S., Hou, W., Xu, D., & You, X. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.129819 · Cited by 4
BgSub: A Background Subtraction Model for Effective Moving Object Detection
Osman, I. I., & Shehata, M. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-2641-0_1 · Cited by 4
Burshtein, E., Cahan, N., Ayzenberg, L., & Greenspan, H. K. (2025) · SPIE Medical Imaging: Image Processing · doi:10.1117/12.3045886 · Cited by 5
Yang, B., Han, H., Zhang, W., & Li, H. (2025) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2025.103603 · Cited by 4
AI-assisted Diagnosis of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer in Resource-Limited Settings
Ellis, S., Song, S., Reiman, D. J., Hui, X., Zhang, R., Shahriar, H., Argos, M., Kamal, M., Shea, C. R., Grossman, R. L., et al. (2025) · Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-25-0132 · Cited by 3
Luo, Q., Xu, W., Su, J., Yang, C., Gui, W., & Sílven, O. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · doi:10.1109/tim.2025.3565348 · Cited by 3
VisualRWKV-HM: Enhancing linear visual-language models via hybrid mixing
Hou, H., Ma, F., Li, Z., & Yu, F. R. (2025) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103336 · Cited by 3
Huang, Y., Deng, W., Xu, W., Li, Z., Chen, L., & Li, X. (2025) · Landscape Research · doi:10.1080/01426397.2025.2519650 · Cited by 2
Physics–Environment Interaction Network for dense crowd behavior recognition
Yu, J., Zhou, Y., Pan, R., et al. (2025) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2025.112123 · Cited by 2
Performance validation of deep-learning-based approach in stool examination
Corpuz, K. D. F., Kusolsuk, T., Wongphan, B., Chonsawat, P., Naing, K. M., Boonsang, S., Kittichai, V., Fan, C., Chuwongin, S., & Watthanakulpanich, D. (2025) · Parasites & Vectors · doi:10.1186/s13071-025-06878-w · Cited by 2
A generic class-agnostic object counting network with adaptive offset deformable convolution
Wu, W., Xu, Y., & Zhang, H. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.131310 · Cited by 2
From histology to diagnosis: Leveraging pathology foundation models for glioma classification
Saueressig, C. F., Delbridge, C., Scholz, D., Kazemi, A., Khan, M. Z., Metz, M., Meyer, B., Mitsdoerffer, M., Schüffler, P. J., & Wiestler, B. (2025) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110988 · Cited by 2
Bui-Quoc, B., Nguyen-Vi, K., Vu-Duc, A., & Kamel, N. (2025) · Frontiers in Remote Sensing · doi:10.3389/frsen.2025.1666123 · Cited by 2
Large Action Models for Programmatic Orchestration
Piccoli, G., Rodriguez, J., & Mahmoud, A. (2025) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-025-00966-y · Cited by 4
“Notable examples of such generative AI model classes include LLMs (Vaswani et al. 2017), Large Vision Models (LVMs) (Oquab et al. 2024), World Foundation Models (NVIDIA 2025b) and Audio Foundation Models (Yang et al. 2023), each of which seeks state-of-the-art performance within its respective…”
Improving image-retrieval performance of foundation models in gastrointestinal endoscopic images
Kim, K., Park, J., Kim, S. H., & Hwang, Y. (2025) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1727884 · Cited by 4
“The premise of the dual-backbone architecture is that a general-purpose model, such as DINOv2 (15), captures fundamental visual primitives (e.g., shapes and textures), while a domain-specific model, such as GastroNet (16), extracts the fine-grained features unique to endoscopic environments.”
Wang, C., Chu, T.-C., Wu, T.-K., Chung, Y.-P., Lin, S.-S., & Chao, T.-K. (2026) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02359-1 · Cited by 4
“…including (1) UNI 24 with a large vision transformer ViT-L/16 backbone 49 and pre-trained on the Mass-100K datasets 24 using DINOv2 SSL method 50 , (2) the CTransPath encoder 39 with a Swin trans-formerSwin-T/14backbone 51 andpre-trainedusingMoCov3SSLmethod 43 on TCGA and PAIP datasets 52,53…”
A Genealogy of Foundation Models in Remote Sensing
Lane, K., & Karimzadeh, M. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems · doi:10.1145/3789505 · Cited by 7
“This approach leverages reconstruction loss in the latent space, but more distillation SSL approaches rely on contrasting embeddings from the student and teacher encoders [27, 46, 63, 96].”
Improving Few-Shot Object Detection Using Visual Explanations of DINOv2 Features
Neuschmied, H., Winter, M., & Werner Bailer, A. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-6963-2_5 · Cited by 2
Recurrence over Video Frames (RoVF) for Animal Re-identification
Rogers, M., Knowles, K., Gendron, G., Heidari, S., Duporge, I., Valdez, D. A. S., Azhar, M., O’Leary, P., Eyre, S., Witbrock, M., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-025-02709-8 · Cited by 5
Early detection of metastatic risk in primary cutaneous melanoma using weakly supervised learning
Dahlén, F., Shujski, I., Yacob, F., Häggström, I., Jovanovic, J., Dudina, O., Pölönen, I., & Neittaanmäki, N. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-45588-w · Cited by 2
“It uses a two-stage approach with a tile encoder, pretrained using DINOv2 12 , to capture local features from image tiles, and a slide encoder, leveraging masked autoencoder pretraining with LongNet 41 , to model global features across the entire slide.”
Huang, H., Ding, K., Zhu, D., Cheng, Q., Huang, X., Huang, X., Wang, S., & Shao, Z. (2026) · Geo-spatial Information Science · doi:10.1080/10095020.2026.2646372 · Cited by 3
Eschweiler, D., Merodio, E. C., Ordonez, F. B., Lichev, A., Ignatova, N., von der Stück, M. S., Kuhl, C. K., Truhn, D., & Nebelung, S. (2026) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-026-12555-y · Cited by 2
“We used a pretrained dense-matching framework [22] that combines a “ Distillation of Knowledge with No Labels ” (DINOv2) transformer-encoder [27] for coarse, low-resolution context (14 × 14-pixel patches) with a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based feature pyramid [28] for fi ne, high-resolution…”
Lysanets, A., Косуха, О. Ю., Panchenko, T., & Tereshchenko, Y. (2026) · Applied Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/08839514.2026.2685357 · Cited by 2
Attention-based Self-Supervised Hierarchical Semantic Segmentation for Underwater Imagery
Singh, K., Rypkema, N., & Leonard, J. J. (2023) · doi:10.1109/oceanslimerick52467.2023.10244736 · Cited by 2
DoppelVer: A Benchmark for Face Verification
Thom, N., DeBolt, A., Brown, L., & Hand, E. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47969-4_34 · Cited by 2
GSN: Generalisable Segmentation in Neural Radiance Field
Gupta, V., Goel, R., Dhawal, S., & Narayanan, P. J. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i3.27972 · Cited by 2
Primitive-Based 3D Human-Object Interaction Modelling and Programming
Liu, S., Li, Y., Fang, Z., Liu, X., You, Y., & Lu, C. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i4.28161 · Cited by 2
Limitations of Face Image Generation
Rosenberg, H., Ahmed, S., Ramesh, G. V., Fawaz, K., & Vinayak, R. K. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i13.29403 · Cited by 2
A Transformer and Visual Foundation Model-Based Method for Cross-View Remote Sensing Image Retrieval
Yin, C., Ye, Q., & Luo, J. (2024) · The international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · doi:10.5194/isprs-archives-xlviii-1-2024-821-2024 · Cited by 2
“Recently, Meta AI Research introduced DinoV2 (Oquab et al., 2023), a large visual foundation model that demonstrates robust generalization and zero-shot transfer capabilities in downstream tasks such as semantic segmentation and depth estimation.”
BackgroundLeveraging Self-Supervised Vision Transformers for Segmentation-Based Transfer Function Design
Engel, D., Sick, L., & Ropinski, T. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3401755 · Cited by 2
Modular, hierarchical machine learning for sequential goal completion
McDonald, N. (2024) · doi:10.1117/12.3013861 · Cited by 2
“By working with task-agnostic feature extractors, e.g. CLIP [19] or DINO [20], one can translate raw data into semantically meaningful hypervectors.”
MethodCNN-Based Explanation Ensembling for Dataset, Representation and Explanations Evaluation
Hryniewska-Guzik, W., Longo, L., & Biecek, P. (2024) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-63797-1_18 · Cited by 3
Park, C. J., Choi, K. S., Park, J., Choi, S. H., Hwang, I., & Shin, T. (2024) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2024.106652 · 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
