ImCLR: Implicit Contrastive Learning for Image Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrastive learning is an effective method for learning visual representations. In most cases, this involves adding an explicit loss function to encourage similar images to have similar representations, and different images to have different representations. In this paper, we introduce a clever construction for Implicit Contrastive Learning (ImCLR), primarily in the supervised setting: there, the network can implicitly learn to differentiate between similar and dissimilar images. Furthermore, this requires almost no change to existing pipelines, which allows for easy integration and for fair demonstration of effectiveness on a wide range of well-accepted benchmarks. Namely, there is no change to loss, no change to hyperparameters, and no change to general network architecture. We show that ImCLR improves the test error in the supervised setting across a variety of settings, including 3.24% on Tiny ImageNet, 1.30% on CIFAR-100, 0.14% on CIFAR-10, and 2.28% on STL-10. We show that this holds across different number of labeled samples, maintaining approximately a 2% gap in test accuracy down to using only 5\% of the whole dataset. We further show that gains hold for robustness to common input corruptions and perturbations at varying severities with a 0.72% improvement on CIFAR-100-C, and in the semi-supervised setting with a 2.16% improvement with the standard benchmark Π-model. We demonstrate that ImCLR is complementary to existing data augmentation techniques, achieving over 1% improvement on CIFAR-100 by combining ImCLR with CutMix over either baseline, and 2\% by combining ImCLR with AutoAugment over either baseline. Finally, we perform an ablation study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".