PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Contrastive Implicit Representation Learning

Riccardo Valperga, Samuele Papa, David W. Romero, Miltiadis Kofinas, Jan-jakob Sonke, Efstratios Gavves

self/semi-supervised learningImplicit neural representationsself-supervised-learningcontrastive learningneural fieldsmultiplicative filter networksSimCLR
18.40100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
17.00100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
22.20100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We perform SimCLR on implicit neural representations.

Abstract

Implicit Neural Representations have emerged as an interesting alternative to traditional array representations. The challenge of performing downstream tasks directly on implicit representations has been addressed by several methods. Overcoming this challenge would open the door to the application of implicit representations to a wide range of fields. Then again, self-supervised representation learning methods, such as the several contrastive learning frameworks which have been proven powerful representation learning methods. So far, the use of self-supervised learning for implicit representations has remained unexplored, mostly because of the difficulty of producing valid augmented views of implicit representations to be used for learning contrasts. In this work, we adapt the popular SimCLR algorithm to implicit representations that consist of multiplicative filters networks and SIRENs. While methods to obtain augmentations in SIREN have been studied in the literature, we provide methods for augmenting MFNs effectively. We show how MFNs lend themselves well to geometric augmentations. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to demonstrate that self-supervised learning on implicit representations of images is feasible and results in good downstream task performances.

Author context

Most prolific author: 5 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 30 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 43% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 30)