On the Alignment Between Supervised and Self-Supervised Contrastive Learning

Self-supervised contrastive learning (CL) has achieved remarkable empirical success, often producing representations that rival supervised pre-training on downstream tasks. Recent theory explains this by showing that the CL loss closely approximates a supervised surrogate, Negatives-Only Supervised Contrastive Learning (NSCL), as the number of classes grows. Yet this loss-level similarity leaves an open question: {\em Do CL and NSCL also remain aligned at the representation level throughout training, not just in their objectives?} We address this by analyzing the representation alignment of CL and NSCL models trained under shared randomness (same initialization, batches, and augmentations). First, we show that their induced representations remain similar: specifically, we prove that the similarity matrices of CL and NSCL stay close under realistic conditions. Our bounds provide high-probability guarantees on alignment metrics such as centered kernel alignment (CKA) and representational similarity analysis (RSA), and they clarify how alignment improves with more classes, higher temperatures, and its dependence on batch size. In contrast, we demonstrate that parameter-space coupling is inherently unstable: divergence between CL and NSCL weights can grow exponentially with training time. Finally, we validate these predictions empirically, showing that CL–NSCL alignment strengthens with scale and temperature, and that NSCL tracks CL more closely than other supervised objectives. This positions NSCL as a principled bridge between self-supervised and supervised learning.