Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Guillotine Regularization: Why removing layers is needed to improve generalization in Self-Supervised Learning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2206.13378 v2 pith:FHJAPJFA submitted 2022-06-27 cs.LG

Guillotine Regularization: Why removing layers is needed to improve generalization in Self-Supervised Learning

classification cs.LG
keywords downstreamprojectorgeneralizationlayerlearningnetworktasktraining
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

One unexpected technique that emerged in recent years consists in training a Deep Network (DN) with a Self-Supervised Learning (SSL) method, and using this network on downstream tasks but with its last few projector layers entirely removed. This trick of throwing away the projector is actually critical for SSL methods to display competitive performances on ImageNet for which more than 30 percentage points can be gained that way. This is a little vexing, as one would hope that the network layer at which invariance is explicitly enforced by the SSL criterion during training (the last projector layer) should be the one to use for best generalization performance downstream. But it seems not to be, and this study sheds some light on why. This trick, which we name Guillotine Regularization (GR), is in fact a generically applicable method that has been used to improve generalization performance in transfer learning scenarios. In this work, we identify the underlying reasons behind its success and show that the optimal layer to use might change significantly depending on the training setup, the data or the downstream task. Lastly, we give some insights on how to reduce the need for a projector in SSL by aligning the pretext SSL task and the downstream task.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Radial Basis Function Networks as Projection Heads in Self-Supervised Learning

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    RBFN projection heads serve as competitive replacements for MLP heads in SSL and enable SNS, a label-free metric from RBF parameters that correlates strongly with logistic regression evaluation.

  2. Perception Encoder: The best visual embeddings are not at the output of the network

    cs.CV 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Intermediate layers of a contrastively trained vision-language encoder yield stronger general embeddings than the output layer, enabling state-of-the-art performance across image/video classification, multimodal QA, a...

  3. Revisiting Feature Prediction for Learning Visual Representations from Video

    cs.CV 2024-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    V-JEPA models trained only on feature prediction from 2 million public videos achieve 81.9% on Kinetics-400, 72.2% on Something-Something-v2, and 77.9% on ImageNet-1K using frozen ViT-H/16 backbones.

  4. LeNEPA: No-Augmentation Next-Latent Prediction for Time-Series Representation Learning

    cs.LG 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LeNEPA proposes a no-augmentation next-latent prediction recipe that maintains frozen-probe performance across ECG and synthetic diagnostic time-series datasets under fixed-recipe conditions where a tuned JEPA baselin...