A Unified Geometric Framework for Weighted Contrastive Learning

TL;DR

This paper presents a geometric interpretation of weighted contrastive learning objectives, revealing how different weighting schemes influence the geometry of learned embeddings and their optimality.

Contribution

It introduces a unified framework interpreting contrastive learning as a Distance Geometry Problem, characterizing optimal embeddings under various weighting schemes.

Findings

Balanced SupCon recovers regular simplex geometry

Class imbalance affects inter-class similarities in SupCon

Certain weighting schemes ensure geometrically consistent embeddings

Abstract

Contrastive learning (CL) aims to preserve relational structure between samples by learning representations that reflect a similarity graph. Yet, the geometry of the resulting embeddings remains poorly understood. Here we show that weighted InfoNCE objectives can be interpreted as Distance Geometry Problems, where the weighting scheme specifies the target geometry to be realized by the representation. This viewpoint yields exact characterizations of the optimal embeddings for several supervised and weakly supervised objectives. In supervised classification, both SupCon and Soft SupCon (a dense relaxation of it where pairs from distinct classes have small non-zero similarity) collapse samples within each class to a single prototype. However, while balanced SupCon recovers the classical regular simplex geometry, class imbalance breaks this symmetry: SupCon induces non-uniform inter-class similarities depending on class sizes, whereas Soft SupCon preserves a regular simplex geometry regardless of class imbalance. In continuous-label settings, our framework reveals a different failure mode: y-Aware CL generally cannot attain its entropic optimum unless the labels lie on a hypersphere, exposing a mismatch between Euclidean label weights and spherical latent similarity. By contrast, geometrically consistent choices such as Euclidean-Euclidean weighting or X-CLR admit unique optimal embeddings. Our results show that the choice of weighting scheme determines whether contrastive learning is geometrically realizable, degenerate, or inconsistent, providing a principled framework for designing contrastive objectives.