The paper investigates whether pretrained image models can generalize to unseen datasets by clustering their embeddings. Using encoders trained only on ImageNet‑1k, both supervised and self‑supervised, the authors evaluate clustering performance on out‑of‑domain images. They find that supervised encoders perform better within the training domain, while self‑supervised encoders excel far outside it, and that fine‑tuning self‑supervised models reverses this trend. Additionally, the study shows that the silhouette score in UMAP‑reduced space correlates strongly with clustering accuracy, offering a proxy metric when labels are unavailable.
arXiv:2609.36648v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language pre-training has reshaped image clustering, giving rise to language-assisted image clustering (LaIC), which leverages textual semantics...
arXiv:2607. 06887v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Most self-supervised image clustering models, actually almost all deep learning approaches, are based on gradient descent: In order to calculate the loss, every optimization step requires a clearly defined target, whether a contrastive split, a masked patch or entity, an EMA-teacher output, a pseudo-label, or a differentiable information-theoretic functional.
Self-supervision is a powerful technique for learning visual representations from unlabeled data. Existing techniques primarily adopt a two-stage approach for self-supervised learning (SSL): a pretraining stage on unlabeled data followed by a finetuning stage on labeled data.
The paper reports a controlled study of self‑supervised learning (SSL) objectives for image and video pretraining under limited data, architecture, and compute budgets. It compares contrastive, reconstruction, feature‑prediction, and diffusion methods, finding that DINOv2‑style pretraining delivers the best overall performance. Combining DINOv2 with video SSL objectives such as VideoMAE improves image classification and segmentation but harms video tracking and camera‑pose estimation, highlighting a trade‑off between semantic and geometric learning.
arXiv:2603. 15553v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The landscape of self-supervised learning (SSL) is currently dominated by generative approaches (e.
arXiv:2606. 00514v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative modeling and self-supervised representation learning (SSL) optimize structurally different objectives: generative training rewards distributional fidelity, while SSL rewards semantic coherence.
arXiv:2608. 03218v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Dataset distillation compresses a large training set into a compact synthetic set while retaining its downstream utility.
arXiv:2607. 02447v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent research has introduced distributed self-supervised learning (D-SSL) approaches to leverage vast amounts of unlabeled decentralized data.
arXiv:2610.33265v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pretrained vision-language models provide image representations whose suitability for clustering may vary with feature extraction, image domain, and...
The study evaluates self‑supervised learning (SSL) models pretrained on ImageNet‑1k and the Human Protein Atlas (HPA) Field‑of‑View (FOV) for protein localization in microscopy images. DINO‑based Vision Transformer backbones pretrained on either dataset transfer well to the OpenCell dataset, achieving strong performance even without fine‑tuning and improving further when fine‑tuned (0.704 ± 0.027 macro F1 on 17 classes). At the single‑cell level, the HPA‑pretrained model outperforms others in k‑nearest‑neighbor classification across all neighborhood sizes (macro F1 ≥ 0.515).
arXiv:2610.27029v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The feature-extraction quality of pre-trained models sets the ceiling of downstream transfer learning, yet few-shot model selection remains difficult:...
arXiv:2609.14451v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern semi-supervised learning (SSL) couples pseudo-label generation and classifier training, using the classifier's own confidence to select the ps...