Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
162 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Augmentations vs Algorithms: What Works in Self-Supervised Learning (2403.05726v1)

Published 8 Mar 2024 in cs.LG and cs.CV

Abstract: We study the relative effects of data augmentations, pretraining algorithms, and model architectures in Self-Supervised Learning (SSL). While the recent literature in this space leaves the impression that the pretraining algorithm is of critical importance to performance, understanding its effect is complicated by the difficulty in making objective and direct comparisons between methods. We propose a new framework which unifies many seemingly disparate SSL methods into a single shared template. Using this framework, we identify aspects in which methods differ and observe that in addition to changing the pretraining algorithm, many works also use new data augmentations or more powerful model architectures. We compare several popular SSL methods using our framework and find that many algorithmic additions, such as prediction networks or new losses, have a minor impact on downstream task performance (often less than $1\%$), while enhanced augmentation techniques offer more significant performance improvements ($2-4\%$). Our findings challenge the premise that SSL is being driven primarily by algorithmic improvements, and suggest instead a bitter lesson for SSL: that augmentation diversity and data / model scale are more critical contributors to recent advances in self-supervised learning.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (44)
  1. {{\{{TensorFlow}}\}}: a system for {{\{{Large-Scale}}\}} machine learning. In 12th USENIX symposium on operating systems design and implementation (OSDI 16), pp.  265–283, 2016.
  2. Masked siamese networks for label-efficient learning. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp.  456–473. Springer, 2022.
  3. Self-supervised learning from images with a joint-embedding predictive architecture. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.  15619–15629, 2023.
  4. A cookbook of self-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12210, 2023.
  5. VICReg: Variance-invariance-covariance regularization for self-supervised learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=xm6YD62D1Ub.
  6. Unsupervised learning of visual features by contrasting cluster assignments. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:9912–9924, 2020.
  7. Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp.  9650–9660, 2021.
  8. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pp. 1597–1607. PMLR, 2020a.
  9. Big self-supervised models are strong semi-supervised learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:22243–22255, 2020b.
  10. Exploring simple siamese representation learning. in 2021 ieee. In CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp.  15745–15753, 2020.
  11. Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04297, 2020c.
  12. An empirical study of training self-supervised vision transformers. In CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp.  9620–9629, 2021.
  13. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=YicbFdNTTy.
  14. Compiling machine learning programs via high-level tracing. Systems for Machine Learning, 4(9), 2018.
  15. Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(11):665–673, 2020.
  16. Unsupervised representation learning by predicting image rotations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07728, 2018.
  17. Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:21271–21284, 2020.
  18. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.  9729–9738, 2020.
  19. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.  16000–16009, 2022.
  20. Henaff, O. Data-efficient image recognition with contrastive predictive coding. In International conference on machine learning, pp. 4182–4192. PMLR, 2020.
  21. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415, 2016.
  22. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International conference on machine learning, pp. 448–456. pmlr, 2015.
  23. Disentangling the effects of data augmentation and format transform in self-supervised learning of image representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02205, 2023.
  24. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 2017.
  25. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Bkg6RiCqY7.
  26. Random field augmentations for self-supervised representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03629, 2023.
  27. Nesterov, Y. E. A method of solving a convex programming problem with convergence rate o\\\backslash\bigl(k^2\\\backslash\bigr). In Doklady Akademii Nauk, volume 269, pp.  543–547. Russian Academy of Sciences, 1983.
  28. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748, 2018.
  29. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023.
  30. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  31. Context encoders: Feature learning by inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.  2536–2544, 2016.
  32. Sassl: Enhancing self-supervised learning via neural style transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01187, 2023.
  33. Weighted ensemble self-supervised learning. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
  34. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), 115(3):211–252, 2015. doi: 10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y.
  35. Active learning with real annotation costs. In Proceedings of the NIPS workshop on cost-sensitive learning, volume 1. Vancouver, CA:, 2008.
  36. Concerning nonnegative matrices and doubly stochastic matrices. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 21(2):343–348, 1967.
  37. On the importance of initialization and momentum in deep learning. In International conference on machine learning, pp. 1139–1147. PMLR, 2013.
  38. Want to reduce labeling cost? gpt-3 can help. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.13487, 2021.
  39. On the importance of asymmetry for siamese representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.  16570–16579, 2022.
  40. Large batch training of convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.03888, 2017.
  41. Wide residual networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07146, 2016.
  42. Barlow twins: Self-supervised learning via redundancy reduction. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 12310–12320. PMLR, 2021.
  43. Colorful image colorization. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part III 14, pp.  649–666. Springer, 2016.
  44. Zhu, X. Semi-supervised learning with graphs. Carnegie Mellon University, 2005.
Citations (7)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

  • The paper reveals that augmentation strategies are the primary drivers of performance gains in SSL, while algorithm tweaks offer secondary benefits.
  • The paper introduces a unified framework that classifies SSL methods by architecture, augmentation, and loss functions to enable direct comparisons.
  • The paper challenges conventional emphasis on pretext tasks, showing that tuning augmentations and encoders minimizes their impact on downstream performance.

Unveiling the Drivers of Progress in Self-Supervised Learning Models

Introduction to Self-Supervised Learning (SSL)

Self-Supervised Learning (SSL) represents a methodological pivot from conventional supervised learning, focusing on minimizing reliance on labeled datasets by using auxiliary tasks that leverage unlabeled data for pretraining. The appeal of SSL lies in its ability to exploit the rich information present in unlabeled data, potentially sidestepping the labor-intensive process of manual annotation. Given the high costs and practical challenges associated with acquiring labeled data, SSL emerges as a promising framework that not only enhances model efficiency in label-scarce environments but also improves the generalization of learned representations.

As the SSL landscape continues to evolve, a multitude of algorithms have been proposed, each introducing novel perspectives and claiming benchmark supremacy. However, amidst these advancements, a critical interrogation of the driving forces behind SSL performance gains remains largely unexplored. This scrutiny is pivotal, as it untangles the contributory roles of data augmentations, architectural innovations, and algorithmic refinements in enhancing SSL capabilities.

Generalized Framework for SSL

A significant stride in dissecting the components contributing to SSL's advancement is the proposal of a unified framework. This framework categorizes existing SSL algorithms into a coherent schema, parameterizing them in terms of their architecture, augmentation strategies, and loss functions. By offering a bird's-eye view, this framework enables a systematic dissection of SSL methodologies, facilitating direct performance comparisons and the isolation of factors instrumental in performance improvements.

Under this framework, SSL methods are conceptualized as dual-encoder architectures, wherein a pretraining task is formulated, requiring models to predict properties of augmented views of input data. This setup inherently encourages the learning of generalized representations that are valuable for a wide range of downstream tasks.

Impact of Augmentations

Empirical evidence underscores the paramount influence of data augmentations on SSL performance. Augmentation diversity assumes a pivotal role, substantially outstripping the impact of algorithmic tweaks or architectural complexities. This revelation shifts the spotlight to the creative design of augmentation strategies as a crucial lever for SSL enhancement. Specifically, experiments elucidate that increasing augmentation diversity can lead to significantly better model performance, with implications that span both theory and practical application in SSL.

Algorithmic and Architectural Considerations

While augmentations steal the limelight, algorithmic and architectural adjustments present a nuanced picture. The introduction of prediction networks and momentum encoders, though beneficial across various settings, contributes a relatively minor share to the overall performance uplift observed in SSL models. Similarly, switching to more complex models like Vision Transformers (ViTs) provides moderate gains, suggesting that these factors, although important, are secondary to the potent influence of augmentation strategies.

The Pretext Task Conundrum

A particularly striking observation is the diminished significance of the pretext task in determining SSL performance. Contrary to conventional wisdom that emphasizes the innovative design of pretext tasks, findings suggest that, with appropriate tuning of augmentations and encoders, the choice of pretraining task exerts minimal influence on downstream task performance. This challenges prevailing narratives and invites a reevaluation of priorities in SSL research, advocating for a greater focus on data-centric strategies over algorithm-centric innovations.

Concluding Remarks

The comprehensive analysis conducted dispels some of the myths surrounding the drivers of success in SSL, highlighting that the path to significant performance gains is less about algorithmic breakthroughs and more about the strategic manipulation of data through augmentations. These insights not only contribute to a deeper understanding of SSL dynamics but also offer practical guidance for future research directions, emphasizing the exploration of rich and diverse augmentation strategies as a fertile ground for advancing SSL efficacy. As we stand on these findings, the future of SSL appears to be one where data, in its augmented plurality, becomes the cornerstone of model innovation and performance optimization.

File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com PDF File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Markdown