Approximation in Contrastive Representation Learning

Contrastive representation learning (CRL) underpins many modern foundation models. Despite recent theoretical progress, existing analyses suffer from several key limitations: (i) the statistical consistency of CRL remains poorly understood; (ii) available generalization bounds deteriorate as the number of negative samples increases, contradicting the empirical benefits of large negative sets; and (iii) the retrieval performance of CRL has received limited theoretical attention. In this paper, we develop a unified statistical learning theory for CRL. For downstream tasks, we evaluate retrieval quality using an AUC-type population criterion and show that the contrastive loss is statistically consistent with optimal ranking. We further establish a calibration-style inequality that quantitatively relates excess contrastive risk to excess retrieval suboptimality. For upstream training, we study both supervised and self-supervised contrastive objectives and derive generalization bounds of order $O(1/m + 1/\sqrt{n})$ and $O(1/\sqrt{m} + 1/\sqrt{n})$, respectively, where $m$ denotes the number of negative samples and $n$ the number of anchor points. These bounds not only explain the empirical advantages of large negative sets but also reveal an explicit trade-off between $m$ and $n$. Extensive experiments on large-scale vision--language models corroborate our theoretical predictions.

Contrastive learning has become a cornerstone of modern representation learning, powering CLIP-style models that underpin text-to-image generation, vision-language models, and retrieval across a rapidly growing range of modalities. Despite this empirical success, the expressive power of these architectures remains poorly understood. To gain insight, we study expressivity by adopting a population-level, density-estimation viewpoint: each architecture comprises a parameterized set of densities whose parameters may be chosen to approximate the joint distribution of the modalities. This isolates a question of pure representational capacity: which joint distributions can a given contrastive family of parameterizations approximate to arbitrary accuracy? We show that expressivity is sharply architecture-dependent. For two modalities, the simple two-tower CLIP architecture is a universal approximator. A natural generalization of CLIP, widely used in practice when three or more modalities are present, is based on a loss found by summing over all pairwise similarities. This provably cannot represent arbitrary joint distributions, although we prove that it remains expressive enough to match all pairwise conditionals. Motivated by this gap, we propose Hadamard-CLIP, which adds a single learned weight vector on top of the existing encoders and restores universal approximation of the joint for any number of modalities while preserving CLIP's fast, precomputable-embedding retrieval.

Contrastive Representation Learning (CRL) has achieved strong empirical success in multiple machine learning disciplines, yet its theoretical sample complexity remains poorly understood. Existing analyses usually assume that input tuples are identically and independently distributed, an assumption violated in most practical settings where contrastive tuples are constructed from a finite pool of labeled data, inducing dependencies among tuples. While one recent work analyzed this learning setting using U-Statistics to estimate the population risk, the techniques used therein require the risk of each class to concentrate uniformly, making excess risk bounds scale in the order of $ρ_{\min}^{-{1}/{2}}$ where $ρ_{\min}$ denotes the probability of the rarest class. Such a dependency can be overly pessimistic in the extreme multiclass settings where there are many tail classes which contribute minimally to the overall population risk. Our contributions are two-fold. Firstly, we improve upon the previous work and prove a bound with a sample complexity of the same order as the number of classes $R$, regardless of the distribution over classes. Furthermore, we formulate a different estimator that captures the concentration of the risk across classes, enabling sharper bounds in extreme multi-class learning scenarios, especially where class distributions are long-tailed. Under mild assumptions on the class distributions, the resulting sample complexity is $\mathcal{O}(k)$ where $k$ is the number of samples per tuple.