How Well Do Self-Supervised Models Transfer?
About
Self-supervised visual representation learning has seen huge progress recently, but no large scale evaluation has compared the many models now available. We evaluate the transfer performance of 13 top self-supervised models on 40 downstream tasks, including many-shot and few-shot recognition, object detection, and dense prediction. We compare their performance to a supervised baseline and show that on most tasks the best self-supervised models outperform supervision, confirming the recently observed trend in the literature. We find ImageNet Top-1 accuracy to be highly correlated with transfer to many-shot recognition, but increasingly less so for few-shot, object detection and dense prediction. No single self-supervised method dominates overall, suggesting that universal pre-training is still unsolved. Our analysis of features suggests that top self-supervised learners fail to preserve colour information as well as supervised alternatives, but tend to induce better classifier calibration, and less attentive overfitting than supervised learners.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image Classification | CIFAR-100 | Top-1 Accuracy80.27 | 622 | |
| Image Classification | DTD | Accuracy71.68 | 487 | |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-10 | -- | 471 | |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | Top-1 Accuracy76.82 | 429 | |
| Image Classification | Aircraft | Accuracy86.87 | 302 | |
| Image Classification | iNaturalist 2018 | Top-1 Accuracy61.72 | 287 | |
| Image Classification | Oxford-IIIT Pets | Accuracy89.05 | 259 | |
| Image Classification | Caltech-101 | Accuracy91.87 | 198 | |
| Image Classification | FGVC Aircraft | Top-1 Accuracy86.87 | 185 | |
| Image Classification | Flowers | Top-1 Acc98.49 | 80 |