Contrastive Learning Via Equivariant Representation
Sifan Song, Jinfeng Wang, Qiaochu Zhao, Xiang Li, Dufan Wu, Angelos, Stefanidis, Jionglong Su, S. Kevin Zhou, Quanzheng Li

TL;DR
CLeVER introduces an equivariant contrastive learning framework that enhances robustness and efficiency by capturing augmentation-related information, leading to state-of-the-art results across various models and tasks.
Contribution
The paper proposes CLeVER, a novel equivariant contrastive learning method compatible with complex augmentations, improving downstream robustness and efficiency.
Findings
CLeVER improves training efficiency and robustness in downstream tasks.
It achieves state-of-the-art performance on multiple benchmarks.
Equivariant information enhances rotational invariance and model stability.
Abstract
Invariant Contrastive Learning (ICL) methods have achieved impressive performance across various domains. However, the absence of latent space representation for distortion (augmentation)-related information in the latent space makes ICL sub-optimal regarding training efficiency and robustness in downstream tasks. Recent studies suggest that introducing equivariance into Contrastive Learning (CL) can improve overall performance. In this paper, we revisit the roles of augmentation strategies and equivariance in improving CL's efficacy. We propose CLeVER (Contrastive Learning Via Equivariant Representation), a novel equivariant contrastive learning framework compatible with augmentation strategies of arbitrary complexity for various mainstream CL backbone models. Experimental results demonstrate that CLeVER effectively extracts and incorporates equivariant information from practical…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
1. The proposed regularization does improve DINO across multiple backbones. 2. The analytical results and visualizations are helpful. The experiment section is thoughtful and covers various aspects for better evaluation. 3. This paper is easy to follow.
1. This paper proposes a novel regularization based on intuition, but does not discuss any theoretical insights. Considering Table 1, when minimizing $|\|\|h_V\|\|-\|\|h_I\|\||$, why $h_V$ is properly regularized, with values increasing toward that of $h_I$, but $h_I$'s do not decrease much, as moving toward $h_V$ also helps minimize the regularization loss? Moreover, the authors do not report such table on CLeVER for us to compare with Table 1 to check the improvements. 2. Based on Table 2 res
This paper is motivated by the important problems with existing equivariant contrastive learning and introduces a regularization term designed to mitigate collapse problem in DDCL.
The novelty of the proposed method is limited, as the primary difference from DDCL lies solely in the incorporation of a regularization term, which is applicable only to DDCL. Considering this aspect, the contribution of the study appears significantly constrained. Furthermore, there has been no analysis of the collapse phenomenon that occurs within the DDCL framework. The study does not provide a thorough examination of why the proposed regularization term is the most effective solution for ad
- This paper is well-motivated. It is important to explore equivariance of contrastive learning. - CLeVER proposed in this paper is concise and intuitive. - Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of CLeVER.
1. The innovation of CLeVER is minimal. CLeVER without regularization loss is very similar to DDCL. From my perspective, CLeVER without regularization loss simply changes the way $L_{CL}$ and $L_{Orth}$ are computed in DDCL. Moreover, the computation of $L_{CL}$ and $L_{Orth}$ is also very common. 2. Section 3.3 primarily introduces the backbone used by CLeVER. I believe this section is irrelevant to the method and should be moved to Section 4 as part of the experimental settings. 3. Table 2 co
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMachine Learning and Algorithms
MethodsContrastive Learning
