Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Specialized Foundation Models Struggle to Beat Supervised Baselines

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 2411.02796 v2 pith:NYQZZD2H submitted 2024-11-05 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CVq-bio.GN

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CVq-bio.GN
keywords modelssuperviseddomainsfoundationspecializedbaselinescomparedata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Following its success for vision and text, the "foundation model" (FM) paradigm -- pretraining large models on massive data, then fine-tuning on target tasks -- has rapidly expanded to domains in the sciences, engineering, healthcare, and beyond. Has this achieved what the original FMs accomplished, i.e. the supplanting of traditional supervised learning in their domains? To answer we look at three modalities -- genomics, satellite imaging, and time series -- with multiple recent FMs and compare them to a standard supervised learning workflow: model development, hyperparameter tuning, and training, all using only data from the target task. Across these three specialized domains, we find that it is consistently possible to train simple supervised models -- no more complicated than a lightly modified wide ResNet or UNet -- that match or even outperform the latest foundation models. Our work demonstrates that the benefits of large-scale pretraining have yet to be realized in many specialized areas, reinforces the need to compare new FMs to strong, well-tuned baselines, and introduces two new, easy-to-use, open-source, and automated workflows for doing so.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. When Do Foundation Models Pay Off? A Break-Even Analysis of Pretrained Time Series Forecasters

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Time-series foundation models are unconditionally better than classical methods on 15/30 datasets, lose early on 6, and a n_train<700 + seasonality rule resolves 10 deployment decisions without training.

  2. PhenoBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Cell Phenotyping

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new H&E benchmark with 14 fine-grained cell types and biological domain splits shows pathology foundation models scoring around 0.20 to 0.28 macro F1, far below their near-saturated performance on older benchmarks.

  3. Thinking vs. Doing: Agents that Reason by Scaling Test-Time Interaction

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Scaling the number of interaction steps, trained via a curriculum over rollout horizon, improves web-agent task success and outperforms scaling per-step reasoning under fixed token budgets.

  4. Mixture-of-Mamba: Enhancing Multi-Modal State-Space Models with Modality-Aware Sparsity

    cs.LG 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Modality-specific projection weights let a Mamba model match dense multimodal baselines at the same loss using 25% to 65% of the training compute.

Pith tools