mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Views Can Be Deceiving: Improved SSL Through Feature Space Augmentation

arXiv 2406.18562 ↗First posted 28 May 2024cs.CV cs.LGcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Supervised learning methods have been found to exhibit inductive biases favoring simpler features. When such features are spuriously correlated with the label, this can result in suboptimal performance on minority subgroups. Despite the growing popularity of methods which learn from unlabeled data, the extent to which these representations rely on spurious features for prediction is unclear. In this work, we explore the impact of spurious features on Self-Supervised Learning (SSL) for visual representation learning. We first empirically show that commonly used augmentations in SSL can cause undesired invariances in the image space, and illustrate this with a simple example. We further show that classical approaches in combating spurious correlations, such as dataset re-sampling during SSL, do not consistently lead to invariant representations. Motivated by these findings, we propose LateTVG to remove spurious information from these representations during pre-training, by regularizing later layers of the encoder via pruning. We find that our method produces representations which outperform the baselines on several benchmarks, without the need for group or label information during SSL.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 61 of its 72 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 May 2024.

Builds on

61 of 72 references.

References · 61

  1. 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 11,979
  2. 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,764
  3. 2018Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 7,662
  4. 2019Momentum Contrast for Unsupervised Visual Representation Learningcited by 7,482
  5. 2021Emerging Properties in Self-Supervised Vision Transformerscited by 6,893
  6. 2020Bootstrap your own latent: A new approach to self-supervised Learningcited by 4,712
  7. 2014Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wildcited by 3,679
  8. 2020Exploring Simple Siamese Representation Learningcited by 2,853
  9. 2020Unsupervised Learning of Visual Features by Contrasting Cluster Assignmentscited by 2,845
  10. 2020Improved Baselines with Momentum Contrastive Learningcited by 2,282
  11. 2019Invariant Risk Minimizationcited by 1,832
  12. 2021Barlow Twins: Self-Supervised Learning via Redundancy Reductioncited by 1,818
38 more
  1. 2018ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustnesscited by 1,430
  2. 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,366
  3. 2019Distributionally Robust Neural Networks for Group Shifts: On the Importance of Regularization for Worst-Case Generalizationcited by 1,232
  4. 2015Unsupervised Visual Representation Learning by Context Predictioncited by 1,062
  5. 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
  6. 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
  7. 2019Self-supervised Visual Feature Learning with Deep Neural Networks: A Surveycited by 656
  8. 2020A Survey on Contrastive Self-supervised Learningcited by 553
  9. 2021Just Train Twice: Improving Group Robustness without Training Group Informationcited by 522
  10. 2022Last Layer Re-Training is Sufficient for Robustness to Spurious Correlationscited by 379
  11. 2018Confounding variables can degrade generalization performance of radiological deep learning modelscited by 374
  12. 2018Fairness Without Demographics in Repeated Loss Minimizationcited by 363
  13. 2020The Pitfalls of Simplicity Bias in Neural Networkscited by 349
  14. 2021Provable Guarantees for Self-Supervised Deep Learning with Spectral Contrastive Losscited by 311
  15. 2020An Investigation of Why Overparameterization Exacerbates Spurious Correlationscited by 310
  16. 2020Environment Inference for Invariant Learningcited by 306
  17. 2020Fairness without Demographics through Adversarially Reweighted Learningcited by 251
  18. 2022Surgical Fine-Tuning Improves Adaptation to Distribution Shiftscited by 205
  19. 2021Simple data balancing achieves competitive worst-group-accuracycited by 177
  20. 2022Correct-N-Contrast: A Contrastive Approach for Improving Robustness to Spurious Correlationscited by 171
  21. 2021Benchmarking Representation Learning for Natural World Image Collectionscited by 167
  22. 2019What Do Compressed Deep Neural Networks Forget?cited by 164
  23. 2016Grad-CAM: Why did you say that?cited by 159
  24. 2020Understanding the Failure Modes of Out-of-Distribution Generalizationcited by 146
  25. 2020An Empirical Study on Robustness to Spurious Correlations using Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 133
  26. 2020Intriguing Properties of Contrastive Lossescited by 129
  27. 2021Evaluating CLIP: Towards Characterization of Broader Capabilities and Downstream Implicationscited by 128
  28. 2021Self-supervised Learning is More Robust to Dataset Imbalancecited by 122
  29. 2023Change is Hard: A Closer Look at Subpopulation Shiftcited by 119
  30. 2021Can contrastive learning avoid shortcut solutions?cited by 114
  31. 2021Salient ImageNet: How to discover spurious features in Deep Learning?cited by 114
  32. 2021Exploring the Limits of Large Scale Pre-trainingcited by 104
  33. 2018Learning Controllable Fair Representationscited by 83
  34. 2022MetaShift: A Dataset of Datasets for Evaluating Contextual Distribution Shifts and Training Conflictscited by 81
  35. 2021Can Subnetwork Structure be the Key to Out-of-Distribution Generalization?cited by 75
  36. 2022Domain-Adjusted Regression or: ERM May Already Learn Features Sufficient for Out-of-Distribution Generalizationcited by 69
  37. 2022Connect, Not Collapse: Explaining Contrastive Learning for Unsupervised Domain Adaptationcited by 66
  38. 2020Identifying Spurious Correlations for Robust Text Classificationcited by 59

50 most cited of 61 All 61 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

2 papers.