Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Vocabulary-free few-shot learning for Vision-Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A linear map from generic-prompt similarities to class labels lets vision-language models do few-shot classification without knowing a single class name, beating zero-shot CLIP on most datasets.

desk verdict A useful new problem setting and a clean baseline, but the headline results rest on a prompt vocabulary that overlaps with the target classes, so the 'vocabulary-free' claim is only partially supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04005 v1 pith:3U3KL47T submitted 2025-06-04 cs.CV

Maxime Zanella , Clément Fuchs , Ismail Ben Ayed , Christophe De Vleeschouwer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords vocabulary-freefew-shotlearningvision-languagemodelsCLIPsimilaritymappinglinearlabelridgeregressioninterpretability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Vision-language models like CLIP usually need the names of the classes they classify, phrased as prompts such as "a photo of a {class}". This paper removes that requirement: it introduces vocabulary-free few-shot learning, in which the only given information is a handful of labeled images per unknown class. The proposed method, Similarity Mapping (SiM), scores each image against a fixed list of generic prompts (the 1000 ImageNet class names, a 16,452-word Wordnet subset, or even one image per ImageNet class) and learns a linear map from those scores to class labels by ridge regression. SiM beats zero-shot CLIP, which gets to use the true class names, on six of ten datasets with 4 shots per class and eight of ten with 16 shots, while the mapping itself trains in under a second.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the linear mapping $W = (L^\top L + \lambda I_K)^{-1}L^\top Y$, the closed-form ridge-regression solution that projects the space of image–prompt similarity scores onto the one-hot label space. The rows of $L$ are the similarity vectors of the few-shot images against a fixed generic vocabulary (textual prompts from ImageNet or Wordnet class lists, or visual prompts made of one image per ImageNet class), so nothing about the target classes enters in advance. The mapping does the entire job: it converts whatever linear structure CLIP's similarity space already carries about the unknown classes into a classifier, and the weights $w_{k,c}$ additionally rank which generic concepts each target class responds to, providing the paper's interpretability results.

What would settle it

Delete from the generic vocabulary every prompt semantically related to a target dataset (for example, remove all animal terms before testing on Pets) and measure the accuracy drop: the paper's mechanism predicts a large drop, and its size quantifies how much of SiM's success is genuine semantic coverage rather than incidental score structure. On the opposite side, a task whose classes are constructed to be semantically disjoint from the vocabulary should keep SiM near chance at any shot count, so observed high accuracy there would refute the coverage assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the similarity scores of images against a generic, task-agnostic prompt vocabulary contain enough class structure that a plain linear readout yields a working few-shot classifier, so explicit class names are unnecessary. Concretely, SiM builds the $N\times K$ matrix $L$ of similarities between the $N$ labeled shots and $K$ generic prompts, one-hot encodes the shot labels in $Y$, and solves the Tikhonov-regularized least-squares problem $$W = \arg\min_W \|Y - LW\|$_F^{2}$ + \$\lambda$\|W\|$_F^{2}$,$$ whose closed-form solution is $W = (L^\top L + \lambda I_K)^{-1}L^\top Y$. A test image is classified by passing its similarity vector through $W$. The authors report that this baseline outperforms zero-shot CLIP on six of ten datasets at 4 shots and eight of ten at 16 shots, approaches name-based few-shot methods such as prompt tuning and adapters without matching them, and that the columns of $W$ double as a semantic description linking each unknown class to the most relevant generic concepts.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the fixed generic prompt list produces similarity scores in which every unknown class can be separated from the others by a simple weighted sum, so classes that fall outside the semantic reach of the prompt vocabulary give the mapping nothing useful to work with and accuracy collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Few-shot classification of unknown classes is feasible as a black-box operation: SiM needs only the similarity scores, not the underlying embeddings, and the mapping trains in under a second (0.8 s even for 16,000 shots against 16,452 prompts).
  • The prompt vocabulary does not need to be curated for the task: generic lists such as ImageNet class names or Wordnet words work across datasets, and image-based prompts close most of the gap to textual prompts as shots increase.
  • The learned mapping doubles as an interpretability device, linking unnamed classes to known concepts (gerenuk to impala and gazelle; rope climbing to abseil), which could support automatic naming of discovered classes.
  • Performance stays below name-based few-shot methods and below zero-shot on some datasets, particularly fine-grained tasks like Aircraft, Cars, and Flowers, so the vocabulary-free setting still has a real cost.
  • Using a stronger backbone (ViT-L/14) markedly shrinks the gap to name-based methods, and SiM with Wordnet prompts reaches 72.8% on ImageNet itself at 32 shots versus 75.9% for zero-shot with true class names.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the linear-readout claim holds, the choice of generic vocabulary is a tunable inductive bias: selecting or weighting prompts to maximize the separability of the few-shot classes should improve SiM, a variant the paper does not test.
  • The interpretability failures on fine-grained classes suggest the mapping can succeed via score structure that is not semantic; ablating semantically related prompts from the vocabulary would reveal how much of the method's accuracy is genuine concept linking.
  • Because the method consumes only similarity scores, it should transfer to black-box API access to contrastive multimodal models, and the same score-mapping idea could apply beyond classification, e.g., to retrieval or clustering of unnamed image collections.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces "vocabulary-free few-shot learning" for vision-language models, a setting in which target class names are unavailable but a few labeled images per class are provided. The proposed method, Similarity Mapping (SiM), computes image similarities against a fixed set of generic prompts (textual or visual), learns a linear mapping W from these similarity scores to one-hot class labels via ridge regression (Eqs. 3-4), and classifies test images by applying W to their similarity scores. The paper evaluates SiM on 10 datasets with two CLIP backbones, comparing it against label-mapping baselines, a centroids baseline, and standard name-based few-shot methods, and reports that SiM outperforms zero-shot CLIP on several datasets while requiring no target class names.

Significance. If the results hold, SiM is a simple, efficient, and practical baseline for a genuinely useful setting, and the paper's framing of vocabulary-free few-shot learning is a reasonable addition to the VLM adaptation literature. The method is easy to understand, the least-squares derivation is correct, and the paper includes useful ablations over prompt sources (ImageNet text, Wordnet text, ImageNet images) plus an ImageNet experiment with Wordnet prompts. The code release and the interpretability analysis are additional strengths. However, the evaluation protocol has a potential vocabulary-overlap problem that affects the central "vocabulary-free" claim, and the experimental reporting omits variability measures and the value of the regularization hyperparameter.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Tables 1-3] The main results use the ImageNet-1K class names as the "generic" prompt vocabulary, and several target datasets (Caltech101, Pets, Food101, UCF101, SUN397) share class names with that vocabulary. SiM can therefore learn weights that route the one-hot label through a prompt that is effectively the target class name, so the claim that the method operates without access to class names is not yet established for those datasets. The paper itself treats this as a problem for ImageNet by switching to Wordnet prompts in Table 3, but Wordnet is also not guaranteed to be disjoint from the ImageNet class names (many ImageNet classes are Wordnet synsets), and no overlap statistics are reported for any dataset. Please report, for each dataset, the fraction of target class names that appear in the generic prompt vocabulary, and add a disjoint-vocabulary evaluation, e.g., removing all prompts that match a target class name, for every dataset and for all three prompt types. Table 2's Wordnet results should be analyzed with the same overlap statistics.
  2. [Section 5, Table 1] The headline claim that SiM outperforms zero-shot CLIP on 6/10 or 8/10 datasets is based on averages over 3 seeds with no standard deviations or confidence intervals, and several of the claimed wins are very small (e.g., SUN 62.7 vs 62.6 and Caltech 93.2 vs 92.9 for 4-shot ViT-B/16). Without variability estimates, these aggregate claims are not statistically supported. Please report per-seed results or standard deviations for the main comparisons, and either run more seeds or use a paired test when claiming a win over zero-shot CLIP.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3)] The regularization coefficient lambda in the ridge regression objective is never specified in the paper, despite being a free parameter of the method. Since W = (L^T L + lambda I)^-1 L^T Y depends directly on lambda, the reported results are not reproducible from the text. Please state the value(s) of lambda used for all experiments, describe how lambda was selected (e.g., fixed default, validation split, per-dataset tuning), and provide an ablation showing sensitivity to lambda across a reasonable range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The paragraph describing Eq. (3) as an "unsupervised clustering objective" is misleading: Y is a fixed one-hot label matrix, so the optimization is supervised linear classification on the similarity features. Please rephrase to avoid confusion with unsupervised clustering.
  2. [Section 4.2] The Wordnet vocabulary selection is underspecified: the phrase "words in Wordnet which are related to at least one of the words in [...]" does not define which Wordnet relations are used (e.g., hyponymy, hypernymy, meronymy) or how the seed words are expanded. Since the resulting K=16,452 depends on this choice, please provide the exact selection procedure.
  3. [Section 5] The sentence "Our approach outperforms zero-shot CLIP on 6 out of 10 datasets with 4 shots per class and on 8 out of 10 datasets with 16 shots per class" is not tied to a backbone. For ViT-B/16, Table 1a shows 7 wins at 4 shots, not 6. Please state which backbone the claim refers to, or report the counts for both backbones separately.
  4. [Section 4.2] The experimental setting lists 11 datasets, but Table 1 reports results for 10 datasets and ImageNet appears separately in Table 3. Please clarify this organization explicitly, including the reason that ImageNet is excluded from the main table when ImageNet class names are used as prompts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning: SiM is a straightforward ridge-regression fit on labeled few-shot images; the vocabulary-overlap concern is an evaluation-validity issue, not a derivation cycle.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained and non-circular. SiM fits W by solving Eq. (3), a regularized least-squares problem whose closed form is Eq. (4), W = (L^T L + lambda I)^-1 L^T Y, with Y the one-hot labels of the few-shot training images. At test time the same W is applied to similarity vectors of held-out test images via Eq. (5). This is a standard supervised linear probe; the target labels enter only as training supervision and are not reused as the test prediction. No parameter is fitted to the test set and then reported as a prediction. The paper's comparisons to zero-shot CLIP, CoOp, Tip-Adapter, and other baselines are external benchmark numbers, not consequences of the fitting equations. The self-citation to CLIP-LoRA appears only as a baseline method in Related Work and Table 1; it does not justify the method or the least-squares solution. The only substantive concern is that the default generic prompt vocabulary is the 1,000 ImageNet class names (Section 4.2), and some target label sets overlap with those names, which could inflate the reported gains over zero-shot CLIP. This is an evaluation-validity limitation, not a circular derivation: the mapping W is still estimated from labeled training shots and evaluated on distinct test images, and the paper also reports Wordnet and image-prompt variants (Table 2) and uses Wordnet prompts for ImageNet itself (Table 3), implicitly acknowledging the overlap issue. No equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the adequacy of CLIP similarity features and on the semantic coverage of the chosen generic prompt dictionaries; the only numeric free parameter is lambda, whose value is undisclosed. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • lambda (Tikhonov regularization coefficient)
    Regularizes the least-squares mapping in Eq. (3). The paper does not report its value, how it was chosen, or whether it was tuned per dataset.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption CLIP's normalized similarity scores f_i^T t_k are informative features for linear classification of arbitrary downstream classes.
    The entire pipeline substitutes these similarities for learned features; the paper validates only on 10 standard datasets whose classes often overlap with the prompt vocabulary.
  • ad hoc to paper A fixed dictionary of generic prompts (ImageNet classes, Wordnet subset, or ImageNet images) covers the semantic space of the target datasets well enough.
    The prompt set is a hand-picked vocabulary; the paper itself notes performance collapses on fine-grained classes absent from ImageNet (Section 5), so this coverage is a load-bearing choice rather than a guaranteed property.
  • standard math The closed-form ridge solution (L^T L + lambda I)^-1 L^T Y is a stable estimator when N is small and K is large.
    Relies on standard linear algebra for the normal equations; no formal guarantee is given for the few-shot regime, but this is conventional.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vocabulary-free few-shot learning for Vision-Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3U3KL47T

@misc{pith2026250604005,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vocabulary-free few-shot learning for Vision-Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3U3KL47T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04005}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in few-shot adaptation for Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have greatly expanded their ability to generalize across tasks using only a few labeled examples. However, existing approaches primarily build upon the strong zero-shot priors of these models by leveraging carefully designed, task-specific prompts. This dependence on predefined class names can restrict their applicability, especially in scenarios where exact class names are unavailable or difficult to specify. To address this limitation, we introduce vocabulary-free few-shot learning for VLMs, a setting where target class instances - that is, images - are available but their corresponding names are not. We propose Similarity Mapping (SiM), a simple yet effective baseline that classifies target instances solely based on similarity scores with a set of generic prompts (textual or visual), eliminating the need for carefully handcrafted prompts. Although conceptually straightforward, SiM demonstrates strong performance, operates with high computational efficiency (learning the mapping typically takes less than one second), and provides interpretability by linking target classes to generic prompts. We believe that our approach could serve as an important baseline for future research in vocabulary-free few-shot learning. Code is available at https://github.com/MaxZanella/vocabulary-free-FSL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04005 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Current few-shot learning methods assume that tar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Summary of our approach with three target classes. (1) At training time, a linear operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The linear mapping is learned in the 16-shot setting with the ViT-L/14 backbone. We order the generic prompts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The linear mapping is learned in the 16-shot setting with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K-means clustering is matrix factor- ization

    Christian Bauckhage. K-means clustering is matrix factor- ization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.07548, 2015. 4

    arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Food-101–mining discriminative components with random forests

    Lukas Bossard, Matthieu Guillaumin, and Luc Van Gool. Food-101–mining discriminative components with random forests. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part VI 13, pages 446–461. Springer, 2014. 4

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Lasp: Text-to- text optimization for language-aware soft prompting of vi- sion & language models

    Adrian Bulat and Georgios Tzimiropoulos. Lasp: Text-to- text optimization for language-aware soft prompting of vi- sion & language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 23232–23241, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Bayesian-guided label mapping for visual reprogram- ming

    Chengyi Cai, Zesheng Ye, Lei Feng, Jianzhong Qi, and Feng Liu. Bayesian-guided label mapping for visual reprogram- ming. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:17656–17695, 2025. 3, 4

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Understanding and improving visual prompt- ing: A label-mapping perspective

    Aochuan Chen, Yuguang Yao, Pin-Yu Chen, Yihua Zhang, and Sijia Liu. Understanding and improving visual prompt- ing: A label-mapping perspective. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19133–19143, 2023. 2, 3

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Plot: Prompt learning with optimal transport for vision-language models

    Guangyi Chen, Weiran Yao, Xiangchen Song, Xinyue Li, Yongming Rao, and Kun Zhang. Plot: Prompt learning with optimal transport for vision-language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Describing textures in the wild

    Mircea Cimpoi, Subhransu Maji, Iasonas Kokkinos, Sammy Mohamed, and Andrea Vedaldi. Describing textures in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3606–3613, 2014. 4

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    V ocabulary-free image classification

    Alessandro Conti, Enrico Fini, Massimiliano Mancini, Paolo Rota, Yiming Wang, and Elisa Ricci. V ocabulary-free image classification. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 30662–30680. Curran Associates, Inc., 2023. 2

    work page 2023

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    V ocabulary-free im- age classification and semantic segmentation

    Alessandro Conti, Enrico Fini, Massimiliano Mancini, Paolo Rota, Yiming Wang, and Elisa Ricci. V ocabulary-free im- age classification and semantic segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10864, 2024. 2, 6, 8

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 248–255, 2009. 4

    2009

  3. [11]

    Variational prompt tuning improves generalization of vision-language models

    Mohammad Mahdi Derakhshani, Enrique Sanchez, Adrian Bulat, Victor Guilherme Turrisi da Costa, Cees GM Snoek, Georgios Tzimiropoulos, and Brais Martinez. Variational prompt tuning improves generalization of vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02390, 2022. 2

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Adversarial reprogramming of neural networks

    Gamaleldin F Elsayed, Ian Goodfellow, and Jascha Sohl- Dickstein. Adversarial reprogramming of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.11146, 2018. 2, 3

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Learning gener- ative visual models from few training examples: An incre- mental bayesian approach tested on 101 object categories

    Li Fei-Fei, Rob Fergus, and Pietro Perona. Learning gener- ative visual models from few training examples: An incre- mental bayesian approach tested on 101 object categories. In 2004 conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshop, pages 178–178. IEEE, 2004. 4

    2004

  6. [14]

    Clip-adapter: Better vision-language models with feature adapters

    Peng Gao, Shijie Geng, Renrui Zhang, Teli Ma, Rongyao Fang, Yongfeng Zhang, Hongsheng Li, and Yu Qiao. Clip-adapter: Better vision-language models with feature adapters. International Journal of Computer Vision , pages 1–15, 2023. 2

    2023

  7. [15]

    Tikhonov regularization and total least squares

    Gene H Golub, Per Christian Hansen, and Dianne P O’Leary. Tikhonov regularization and total least squares. SIAM jour- nal on matrix analysis and applications , 21(1):185–194,

  8. [16]

    Eurosat: A novel dataset and deep learning benchmark for land use and land cover classification

    Patrick Helber, Benjamin Bischke, Andreas Dengel, and Damian Borth. Eurosat: A novel dataset and deep learning benchmark for land use and land cover classification. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 12(7):2217–2226, 2019. 4

    2019

  9. [17]

    Maple: Multi-modal prompt learning

    Muhammad Uzair Khattak, Hanoona Rasheed, Muhammad Maaz, Salman Khan, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Maple: Multi-modal prompt learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19113–19122, 2023. 1, 2, 4

    2023

  10. [18]

    Self-regulating prompts: Foundational model adaptation without forgetting

    Muhammad Uzair Khattak, Syed Talal Wasim, Muzam- mal Naseer, Salman Khan, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Fa- had Shahbaz Khan. Self-regulating prompts: Foundational model adaptation without forgetting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 151...

    2023

  11. [19]

    3d object representations for fine-grained categorization

    Jonathan Krause, Michael Stark, Jia Deng, and Li Fei-Fei. 3d object representations for fine-grained categorization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on com- puter vision workshops, pages 554–561, 2013. 4

    2013

  12. [20]

    Retrieval augmented clas- sification for long-tail visual recognition

    Alexander Long, Wei Yin, Thalaiyasingam Ajanthan, Vu Nguyen, Pulak Purkait, Ravi Garg, Alan Blair, Chunhua Shen, and Anton van den Hengel. Retrieval augmented clas- sification for long-tail visual recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pa...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Prompt distribution learning

    Yuning Lu, Jianzhuang Liu, Yonggang Zhang, Yajing Liu, and Xinmei Tian. Prompt distribution learning. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5206–5215, 2022. 2

    2022

  14. [22]

    Fine-grained visual classi- fication of aircraft

    Subhransu Maji, Esa Rahtu, Juho Kannala, Matthew Blaschko, and Andrea Vedaldi. Fine-grained visual classi- fication of aircraft. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.5151 , 2013. 4

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Wordnet: a lexical database for english

    George A Miller. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39–41, 1995. 2, 4 9

    1995

  16. [24]

    Automated flower classification over a large number of classes

    Maria-Elena Nilsback and Andrew Zisserman. Automated flower classification over a large number of classes. In 2008 Sixth Indian conference on computer vision, graphics & im- age processing, pages 722–729. IEEE, 2008. 4

    2008

  17. [25]

    Cats and dogs

    Omkar M Parkhi, Andrea Vedaldi, Andrew Zisserman, and CV Jawahar. Cats and dogs. In 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3498–3505. IEEE, 2012. 4

    2012

  18. [26]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  19. [27]

    Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models

    Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Worts- man, et al. Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in neural in- f...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, im- age alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning

    Piyush Sharma, Nan Ding, Sebastian Goodman, and Radu Soricut. Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, im- age alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning. In Pro- ceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Paper...

    2018

  21. [29]

    Flava: A foundational language and vision alignment model

    Amanpreet Singh, Ronghang Hu, Vedanuj Goswami, Guil- laume Couairon, Wojciech Galuba, Marcus Rohrbach, and Douwe Kiela. Flava: A foundational language and vision alignment model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 156...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Prototypical networks for few-shot learning

    Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard Zemel. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 30, 2017. 4

    2017

  23. [31]

    Ucf101: A dataset of 101 human actions classes from videos in the wild

    Khurram Soomro, Amir Roshan Zamir, and Mubarak Shah. Ucf101: A dataset of 101 human actions classes from videos in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.0402, 2012. 4

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Yfcc100m: The new data in multimedia research

    Bart Thomee, David A Shamma, Gerald Friedland, Ben- jamin Elizalde, Karl Ni, Douglas Poland, Damian Borth, and Li-Jia Li. Yfcc100m: The new data in multimedia research. Communications of the ACM, 59(2):64–73, 2016. 2

    2016

  25. [33]

    Transfer learning without knowing: Reprogramming black-box ma- chine learning models with scarce data and limited resources

    Yun-Yun Tsai, Pin-Yu Chen, and Tsung-Yi Ho. Transfer learning without knowing: Reprogramming black-box ma- chine learning models with scarce data and limited resources. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 9614–9624. PMLR, 2020. 2, 3, 4

    2020

  26. [34]

    Sun database: Large-scale scene recognition from abbey to zoo

    Jianxiong Xiao, James Hays, Krista A Ehinger, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. Sun database: Large-scale scene recognition from abbey to zoo. In 2010 IEEE computer so- ciety conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3485–3492. IEEE, 2010. 4

    2010

  27. [35]

    Visual- language prompt tuning with knowledge-guided context op- timization

    Hantao Yao, Rui Zhang, and Changsheng Xu. Visual- language prompt tuning with knowledge-guided context op- timization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6757– 6767, 2023. 2

    2023

  28. [36]

    Task residual for tuning vision-language models

    Tao Yu, Zhihe Lu, Xin Jin, Zhibo Chen, and Xinchao Wang. Task residual for tuning vision-language models. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10899–10909, 2023. 1, 2, 4

    2023

  29. [37]

    Low-rank few-shot adaptation of vision-language models

    Maxime Zanella and Ismail Ben Ayed. Low-rank few-shot adaptation of vision-language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1593–1603, 2024. 1, 2, 4

    2024

  30. [38]

    Tip- adapter: Training-free adaption of clip for few-shot classifi- cation

    Renrui Zhang, Wei Zhang, Rongyao Fang, Peng Gao, Kun- chang Li, Jifeng Dai, Yu Qiao, and Hongsheng Li. Tip- adapter: Training-free adaption of clip for few-shot classifi- cation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 493–510. Springer, 2022. 1, 2, 4

  31. [39]

    Conditional prompt learning for vision-language mod- els

    Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. Conditional prompt learning for vision-language mod- els. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition , pages 16816–16825,

  32. [40]

    Learning to prompt for vision-language models

    Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. Learning to prompt for vision-language models. In- ternational Journal of Computer Vision, 130(9):2337–2348,

  33. [41]

    Prompt-aligned gradient for prompt tuning

    Beier Zhu, Yulei Niu, Yucheng Han, Yue Wu, and Han- wang Zhang. Prompt-aligned gradient for prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15659–15669, 2023. 1, 2 10

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.