Can Generative Models Improve Self-Supervised Representation Learning?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancement in self-supervised representation learning has highlighted its potential to leverage unlabeled data for learning rich visual representations. However, the existing techniques, particularly those employing different augmentations of the same image, often rely on a limited set of simple transformations that cannot fully capture variations in the real world. This constrains the diversity and quality of samples, which leads to sub-optimal representations. In this paper, we introduce a framework that enriches the self-supervised learning (SSL) paradigm by utilizing generative models to produce semantically consistent image augmentations. By directly conditioning generative models on a source image, our method enables the generation of diverse augmentations while maintaining the semantics of the source image, thus offering a richer set of data for SSL. Our extensive experimental results on various joint-embedding SSL techniques demonstrate that our framework significantly enhances the quality of learned visual representations by up to 10% Top-1 accuracy in downstream tasks. This research demonstrates that incorporating generative models into the joint-embedding SSL workflow opens new avenues for exploring the potential of synthetic data. This development paves the way for more robust and versatile representation learning techniques.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it