Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2007.04234

Transfer Learning or Self-supervised Learning? A Tale of Two Pretraining Paradigms

Xingyi Yang·Xuehai He·Yuxiao Liang·Yue Yang·Shanghang Zhang·Pengtao Xie
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Pretraining has become a standard technique in computer vision and natural language processing, which usually helps to improve performance substantially. Previously, the most dominant pretraining method is transfer learning (TL), which uses labeled data to learn a good representation network. Recently, a new pretraining approach -- self-supervised learning (SSL) -- has demonstrated promising results on a wide range of applications. SSL does not require annotated labels. It is purely conducted on input data by solving auxiliary tasks defined on the input data examples. The current reported results show that in certain applications, SSL outperforms TL and the other way around in other applications. There has not been a clear understanding on what properties of data and tasks render one approach outperforms the other. Without an informed guideline, ML researchers have to try both methods to find out which one is better empirically. It is usually time-consuming to do so. In this work, we aim to address this problem. We perform a comprehensive comparative study between SSL and TL regarding which one works better under different properties of data and tasks, including domain difference between source and target tasks, the amount of pretraining data, class imbalance in source data, and usage of target data for additional pretraining, etc. The insights distilled from our comparative studies can help ML researchers decide which method to use based on the properties of their applications.

Explore related subjects

cs.CVcs.LGstat.ML

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Xingyi Yang, Xuehai He, Yuxiao Liang, Yue Yang, Shanghang Zhang, Pengtao Xie. 2020-06-19. Transfer Learning or Self-supervised Learning? A Tale of Two Pretraining Paradigms. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.04234

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Privacy Leakage on DNNs: A Survey of Model Inversion Attacks and Defenses

Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have revolutionized various domains with their exceptional performance across numerous applications. However, Model Inversion (MI) attacks, which disclose private information about the training dataset by abusing access to the trained models, have emerged as a formidable privacy threat. Given a trained network, these attacks enable adversaries to reconstruct high-fidelity data that closely aligns with the private training samples, posing significant privacy concerns. Despite the rapid advances in the field, we lack a comprehensive and systematic overview of existing MI attacks and defenses. To fill this gap, this paper thoroughly investigates this realm and presents a holistic survey. Firstly, our work briefly reviews early MI studies on traditional machine learning scenarios. We then elaborately analyze and compare numerous recent attacks and defenses on Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) across multiple modalities and learning tasks. By meticulously analyzing their distinctive features, we summarize and classify these methods into different categories and provide a novel taxonomy. Finally, this paper discusses promising research directions and presents potential solutions to open issues. To facilitate further study on MI attacks and defenses, we have implemented an open-source model inversion toolbox on GitHub (https://github.com/ffhibnese/Model-Inversion-Attack-ToolBox).

cs.CV↗
arXiv2026

ALINA: Advanced Line Identification and Notation Algorithm

Labels are the cornerstone of supervised machine learning algorithms. Most visual recognition methods are fully supervised, using bounding boxes or pixel-wise segmentations for object localization. Traditional labeling methods, such as crowd-sourcing, are prohibitive due to cost, data privacy, amount of time, and potential errors on large datasets. To address these issues, we propose a novel annotation framework, Advanced Line Identification and Notation Algorithm (ALINA), which can be used for labeling taxiway datasets that consist of different camera perspectives and variable weather attributes (sunny and cloudy). Additionally, the CIRCular threshoLd pixEl Discovery And Traversal (CIRCLEDAT) algorithm has been proposed, which is an integral step in determining the pixels corresponding to taxiway line markings. Once the pixels are identified, ALINA generates corresponding pixel coordinate annotations on the frame. Using this approach, 60,249 frames from the taxiway dataset, AssistTaxi have been labeled. To evaluate the performance, a context-based edge map (CBEM) set was generated manually based on edge features and connectivity. The detection rate after testing the annotated labels with the CBEM set was recorded as 98.45%, attesting its dependability and effectiveness.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2026

DisasterInsight: A Building-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Vision--Language Models in Disaster Response

Vision--language models (VLMs) show promise for disaster-response remote sensing, but existing benchmarks mainly emphasize scene-level or damage-centric assessment. To study this building-centric gap, we introduce \method{}, a diagnostic benchmark built on xBD, a pre/post-disaster satellite dataset with building-level damage labels. \method{} enriches building instances with OpenStreetMap-derived functional labels and contains 134{,}108 task-specific instruction records across 15 task types, spanning instance-level assessment, scene-level counting, multi-instance reasoning, and structured report generation. The benchmark supports RGB pre/post-disaster imagery, single- and multi-view instance formulations, and scene-level RGB/SAR diagnostic inputs. Experiments with general-domain and remote-sensing VLMs show that models perform better on visible damage cues than on building-function understanding, multi-instance reasoning, counting, and grounded reporting. Instruction tuning improves performance on several tasks but does not close this building-centric gap.

cs.CV↗