Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

One Head Eight Arms: Block Matrix based Low Rank Adaptation for CLIP-based Few-Shot Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Block-LoRA partitions LoRA's low-rank update into one shared down-projection block and several up-projection blocks, cutting trainable parameters and computation without sacrificing few-shot accuracy on CLIP.

desk verdict Block-LoRA is vanilla LoRA with a lower effective rank; missing the equivalent-rank baseline makes the paper's headline claims unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16720 v1 pith:RCGFDARD submitted 2025-01-28 cs.CV cs.AI

Chunpeng Zhou , Qianqian Shen , Zhi Yu , Jiajun Bu , Haishuai Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords low-rankadaptationLoRAparameter-efficientfine-tuningfew-shotlearningCLIPvision-languagemodelsblockmatrixdomaingeneralization
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

Block-LoRA is a parameter-efficient fine-tuning method for CLIP-based few-shot classification. The paper argues that the down-projection matrix in vanilla LoRA carries redundancy, and that replacing it with one shared down-projection block while splitting the up-projection into several blocks preserves adaptation quality while using fewer trainable parameters and less computation. The forward pass changes from a low-rank product $xAB$ into $xA_s\sum_i B_i$, turning part of the matrix multiplication into an addition. The paper reports that this lets CLIP fine-tune on the ImageNet few-shot benchmark on a single 24GB GPU, and that a generalization-error bound for Block-LoRA is tighter than the corresponding bound for vanilla LoRA. If the claim holds, efficient few-shot adaptation of vision-language models can be done with substantially lower hardware and time cost.

What carries the argument

The key object is the shared down-projection matrix $A_s \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times r/n}$, obtained by partitioning $A$ into $n$ blocks and replacing them all with one matrix. The update becomes $h = xW + xA_s\sum_{i=1}^n B_i$, where the $B_i$ are the up-projection blocks. This identity is what turns repeated matrix multiplications into a single multiplication after summing the blocks, reducing both parameters and FLOPs. The theoretical bound is derived by counting the bits needed to describe the quantized parameters: the shared block has $k/n$ entries rather than $k$, giving the tighter $\sum_{l\in I}(k^{(l)}/n + d^{(l)})$ term in Lemma 1.

What would settle it

A single comparison suffices: fine-tune CLIP with LoRA and with Block-LoRA on the same 16-shot ImageNet split, using identical seeds and training settings; if Block-LoRA's test accuracy falls below LoRA's by more than the paper's reported spread, the central claim of matching performance with fewer parameters is disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the low-rank update in LoRA can be reorganized into a block structure—partitioning the up-projection $B$ into $n$ submatrices and sharing a single down-projection matrix $A_s$ across all blocks—without losing few-shot accuracy. Formally, the update becomes $\Delta W = A_s \sum_{i=1}^n B_i$ instead of $\Delta W = AB$, which cuts the down-projection parameter count by a factor of $n$ and replaces part of the matrix multiplication with matrix addition. The authors report that Block-LoRA(2,2) matches or slightly beats CLIP-LoRA across 11 few-shot datasets and in cross-dataset and domain-generalization evaluations, while using 75% of the trainable parameters and about 69% of the training time. They also prove, under an information-theoretic bound, that Block-LoRA has a tighter generalization-error upper bound than vanilla LoRA.

Load-bearing premise

The method's advantage depends on the assumption that LoRA's down-projection matrix is redundant enough that one shared block does the work of several distinct blocks, and the theoretical tighter bound additionally assumes the training loss has light-tailed noise, which is not verified for few-shot CLIP.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Block-LoRA's forward pass can be merged into the original weights at inference time, so the method adds no extra latency compared with vanilla LoRA.
  • The parameter count of Block-LoRA(r,n) is between one-half and three-quarters of vanilla LoRA's, and its computational complexity is at most half, enabling fine-tuning of large CLIP models on memory-limited GPUs.
  • The tighter generalization bound suggests that, under the stated assumptions, sharing the down-projection matrix is not only an efficiency trick but also a mild regularizer that may improve few-shot generalization.
  • The block-update structure is task-switchable: replacing the low-rank submatrices adapts the model to a new task without touching the pretrained weights.
  • The training-time savings are concrete: on the 16-shot ImageNet setting, Block-LoRA(2,2) reduces training time to roughly 69% of CLIP-LoRA's while keeping accuracy competitive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same block-sharing trick could plausibly be applied to other low-rank parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods beyond CLIP, such as adapters in large language models, where down-projection redundancy has been independently observed.
  • The paper's ablation shows that the gap between using a learned $A_s$ and a frozen one shrinks as the number of shots grows; a natural extension is to freeze $A_s$ after a few warm-up steps, saving further computation.
  • Because both the parameter savings and the tighter bound depend on $n$, the optimal block count likely depends on the base model's width; the reported results suggest small values like $n=2$ or $n=4$ are sufficient, so tuning $n$ may matter more than tuning rank.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Block-LoRA, a parameter-efficient fine-tuning method for CLIP-based few-shot learning. The idea is to partition the low-rank matrices A and B of vanilla LoRA into n blocks and share a single down-projection matrix As across all blocks, so that the update becomes xAs(Σ_i B_i). The authors claim this reduces trainable parameters and computational cost while maintaining accuracy, and they provide a generalization bound that they state is tighter than vanilla LoRA's. Experiments are reported on 11 datasets for few-shot classification, cross-dataset transfer, and domain generalization, along with ablations over rank r and block count n.

Significance. If the claims were correct, Block-LoRA would be a simple and useful efficiency improvement for adapting CLIP to downstream few-shot tasks. The paper's empirical work is broad (11 datasets, cross-dataset and domain-generalization settings) and the algebraic derivation of Eq. (9) is correct. The information-theoretic generalization bound in Lemma 1 is also a valid application of the Xu-Raginsky framework under the stated assumptions. However, the central methodological claim is undermined by a basic observation: Block-LoRA(r,n) is exactly vanilla LoRA of rank r/n with a particular reparameterization. The paper never compares against the equivalent-rank LoRA baseline, so the claimed parameter savings, speedups, and tighter generalization bound are artifacts of the rank reduction, not of the sharing mechanism. This makes the core novelty and the theoretical advantage unsupported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (9)] Block-LoRA(r,n) is mathematically identical to vanilla LoRA of rank r/n. Setting A' = As and B' = Σ_i B_i in Eq. (9) gives the standard LoRA update xW + xA'B' with A' of size k × (r/n) and B' of size (r/n) × d. Conversely, any LoRA(r/n) parameters (A', B') can be realized by Block-LoRA(r,n) by choosing As = A' and B1 = B', B2 = ... = Bn = 0. The sharing of As therefore does not define a new function class; it is a reparameterization of rank-r/n LoRA. All comparisons in the paper — Table 3 where (r,1) is LoRA(r), Table 4, and the compute analysis — are against LoRA of rank r, not rank r/n. Consequently, the reported reductions in parameters and computation are entirely explained by the reduced effective rank, and the claim that sharing As 'reduces redundancy' is not supported by the evidence.
  2. [Section 4.3, Lemma 1] The claimed tighter generalization bound is an artifact of comparing LoRA(r) against Block-LoRA(r,n), which is effectively LoRA(r/n). Applying the same proof to plain LoRA of rank r/n yields the bound sqrt(2 (r/n) q σ² ln2 / #S Σ_{l∈I} (k(l)+d(l))). This is strictly smaller than the paper's Block-LoRA bound sqrt(2 r q σ² ln2 / #S Σ_{l∈I} (k(l)/n + d(l))) whenever d(l) > 0. Thus the sharing structure does not produce a tighter bound; it produces a looser bound than the equivalent-rank vanilla LoRA baseline. The theoretical advantage stated in the abstract and Section 4.3 is therefore not established.
  3. [Section 5.3, Table 3] The hyperparameter analysis in Table 3 compares Block-LoRA(r,n) only against LoRA(r) (the n=1 rows). Since Block-LoRA(r,n) is LoRA(r/n), the entries (2,2), (4,2), (8,4), etc., should be compared against LoRA of ranks 1, 2, 2, and so on. No such rows appear, so the small accuracy differences between (r,1) and (r,n) cannot be attributed to the sharing mechanism; they are consistent with a change in effective rank and parameter count. Moreover, Block-LoRA(r,n) has k(r/n) + rd trainable parameters, whereas plain LoRA(r/n) has k(r/n) + d(r/n). For d > 0, Block-LoRA(r,n) has more parameters than the equivalent-rank LoRA, contradicting the paper's parameter-efficiency claim. A LoRA(r/n) baseline is essential to support the central claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, e.g., 'While these recent approaches exhibits', 'to to adapt', 'more tighter', 'pytroch', and 'lock-LoRA'. These should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4)] The dimensions of the low-rank matrices in Eq. (4) are stated as A ∈ R^{k×r} and B ∈ R^{r×d}, but the forward pass is written as xAB. Please clarify the orientation of x and whether the writeup follows the original LoRA convention or a transposed convention, since this affects the subsequent parameter-count formulas.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The notation B = [B1^T | B2^T | ... | Bn^T]^T is confusing because the same symbol B is used for the full matrix and for its blocks, and the transposes are not defined clearly. A simpler block-row/block-column notation would improve readability.
  4. [Section 5, Table 4] The complexity formulas in Table 4 use '2rd' and '(1+1/n)rd', which implicitly assume k = d. This assumption should be stated explicitly, since it does not hold for all layers of CLIP.
  5. [Section 5.2 and Figure 3] The few-shot classification results are presented only as a figure (Figure 3), which makes it difficult to read exact numbers and confidence intervals. A table with the numeric averages would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the generalization bound is a standard information-theoretic derivation, and the equivalent-rank issue is a baseline-comparison weakness, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Lemma 1 follows from the Xu-Raginsky mutual-information bound plus an entropy bound on the quantized adaptation matrices; the proof does not assume the conclusion, and the empirical accuracies are measured results rather than fitted predictions. The most serious concern is that Eq. (9), h = xW + x A_s Σ_i B_i, is exactly the vanilla LoRA update of rank r/n with A' = A_s and B' = Σ_i B_i, so the parameter savings, compute reduction, and tighter bound relative to 'vanilla LoRA' come from comparing rank r/n to rank r rather than from the block-sharing structure itself. This is a real baseline-comparison weakness: the paper should add LoRA(r/n) to Table 3 and Table 6, and the claimed benefit of sharing As over simply lowering the rank is not established. However, this is not circular reasoning by the criteria used here: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation is invoked, and the theoretical bound is a valid consequence of the stated assumptions. The only self-citation ([Zhou et al., 2025] in related work) is not load-bearing. Overall, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new entities. Its hyperparameters (r, n) are chosen by hand. The theoretical analysis relies on standard information-theoretic assumptions, with no fitted constants in the derivation.

free parameters (2)
  • rank r = 2
    Set to match the default rank in CLIP-LoRA; not derived from first principles. Ablation in Table 3 shows sensitivity.
  • number of blocks n = 2
    Chosen by default to balance parameter reduction and accuracy; ablation in Table 3 shows sensitivity.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The loss ℓW(ΔW,Z) is σ-sub-Gaussian under the joint distribution.
    Invoked in Lemma 1 (Section 4.3) to apply the information-theoretic generalization bound; not verified for few-shot classification.
  • domain assumption Each tuned parameter is quantized to q bits.
    Used in the entropy bound in Section 4.3 and Appendix A; quantization is an assumption about the parameter representation.
  • standard math The training samples are i.i.d. from the data distribution µ.
    Standard statistical learning assumption for the mutual-information bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One Head Eight Arms: Block Matrix based Low Rank Adaptation for CLIP-based Few-Shot Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RCGFDARD

@misc{pith2026250116720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One Head Eight Arms: Block Matrix based Low Rank Adaptation for CLIP-based Few-Shot Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RCGFDARD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16720}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in fine-tuning Vision-Language Foundation Models (VLMs) have garnered significant attention for their effectiveness in downstream few-shot learning tasks.While these recent approaches exhibits some performance improvements, they often suffer from excessive training parameters and high computational costs. To address these challenges, we propose a novel Block matrix-based low-rank adaptation framework, called Block-LoRA, for fine-tuning VLMs on downstream few-shot tasks. Inspired by recent work on Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA), Block-LoRA partitions the original low-rank decomposition matrix of LoRA into a series of sub-matrices while sharing all down-projection sub-matrices. This structure not only reduces the number of training parameters, but also transforms certain complex matrix multiplication operations into simpler matrix addition, significantly lowering the computational cost of fine-tuning. Notably, Block-LoRA enables fine-tuning CLIP on the ImageNet few-shot benchmark using a single 24GB GPU. We also show that Block-LoRA has the more tighter bound of generalization error than vanilla LoRA. Without bells and whistles, extensive experiments demonstrate that Block-LoRA achieves competitive performance compared to state-of-the-art CLIP-based few-shot methods, while maintaining a low training parameters count and reduced computational overhead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16720 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture comparison of the different CLIP-based few [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The detail structure of our proposed Block-LoRA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Block-LoRA performance comparison in few-shot classification tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparisons of the actual training parameters counts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Foundational models defining a new era in vision: A survey and outlook

    Muhammad Awais, Muzammal Naseer, Salman Khan, Rao Muhammad Anwer, Hisham Cholakkal, Mubarak Shah, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Foundational models defining a new era in vision: A survey and outlook. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13721 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    On the opportunities and risks of foundation models

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258 , 2021

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    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

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    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

    2014

  5. [5]

    Parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large-scale pre-trained language models

    Ning Ding, Yujia Qin, Guang Yang, Fuchao Wei, Zonghan Yang, Yusheng Su, Shengding Hu, Yulin Chen, Chi-Min Chan, Weize Chen, et al. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large-scale pre-trained language models. Nature Machine Intelligence , 5(3):220--235, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Learning generative visual models from few training examples: An incremental bayesian approach tested on 101 object categories

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

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    One-shot learning of object categories

    Li Fei-Fei, Robert Fergus, and Pietro Perona. One-shot learning of object categories. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 28(4):594--611, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks

    Chelsea Finn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017 , volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine...

    2017

  2. [10]

    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 , 132(2):581--595, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Domain aligned clip for few-shot classification

    Muhammad Waleed Gondal, Jochen Gast, Inigo Alonso Ruiz, Richard Droste, Tommaso Macri, Suren Kumar, and Luitpold Staudigl. Domain aligned clip for few-shot classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 5721--5730, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    A systematic survey of prompt engineering on vision-language foundation models

    Jindong Gu, Zhen Han, Shuo Chen, Ahmad Beirami, Bailan He, Gengyuan Zhang, Ruotong Liao, Yao Qin, Volker Tresp, and Philip Torr. A systematic survey of prompt engineering on vision-language foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.12980 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Parameter-efficient fine-tuning for large models: A comprehensive survey

    Zeyu Han, Chao Gao, Jinyang Liu, Jeff Zhang, and Sai Qian Zhang. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning for large models: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14608 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    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

    2019

  7. [15]

    The many faces of robustness: A critical analysis of out-of-distribution generalization

    Dan Hendrycks, Steven Basart, Norman Mu, Saurav Kadavath, Frank Wang, Evan Dorundo, Rahul Desai, Tyler Zhu, Samyak Parajuli, Mike Guo, et al. The many faces of robustness: A critical analysis of out-of-distribution generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international c...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Natural adversarial examples

    Dan Hendrycks, Kevin Zhao, Steven Basart, Jacob Steinhardt, and Dawn Song. Natural adversarial examples. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 15262--15271, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp

    Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 2790--2799. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Lo RA : Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lo RA : Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision

    Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In International conference on machine learning , pages 4904--491...

    2021

  12. [20]

    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

    2023

  13. [21]

    Self-regulating prompts: Foundational model adaptation without forgetting

    Muhammad Uzair Khattak, Syed Talal Wasim, Muzammal Naseer, Salman Khan, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Self-regulating prompts: Foundational model adaptation without forgetting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 15190-...

    2023

  14. [22]

    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 computer vision workshops , pages 554--561, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Human-like systematic generalization through a meta-learning neural network

    Brenden M Lake and Marco Baroni. Human-like systematic generalization through a meta-learning neural network. Nature , 623(7985):115--121, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction

    Brenden M Lake, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science , 350(6266):1332--1338, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Graphadapter: Tuning vision-language models with dual knowledge graph

    Xin Li, Dongze Lian, Zhihe Lu, Jiawang Bai, Zhibo Chen, and Xinchao Wang. Graphadapter: Tuning vision-language models with dual knowledge graph. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Patch-prompt aligned bayesian prompt tuning for vision-language models

    Xinyang Liu, Dongsheng Wang, Bowei Fang, Miaoge Li, Yishi Xu, Zhibin Duan, Bo Chen, and Mingyuan Zhou. Patch-prompt aligned bayesian prompt tuning for vision-language models. In The 40th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence

  19. [27]

    Vision-and-language pretrained models: A survey

    Siqu Long, Feiqi Cao, Soyeon Caren Han, and Haiqin Yang. Vision-and-language pretrained models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07356 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Fine-grained visual classification of aircraft

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

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence

    Michael Moor, Oishi Banerjee, Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Harlan M Krumholz, Jure Leskovec, Eric J Topol, and Pranav Rajpurkar. Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence. Nature , 616(7956):259--265, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    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 & image processing , pages 722--729. IEEE, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    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

    2012

  24. [32]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    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 supervision. In International conference on machine learning , p...

    2021

  25. [33]

    Do imagenet classifiers generalize to imagenet? In International conference on machine learning , pages 5389--5400

    Benjamin Recht, Rebecca Roelofs, Ludwig Schmidt, and Vaishaal Shankar. Do imagenet classifiers generalize to imagenet? In International conference on machine learning , pages 5389--5400. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge

    Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International journal of computer vision , 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard S. Zemel. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA , pages 4077--4087, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Meta-adapter: An online few-shot learner for vision-language model

    Lin Song, Ruoyi Xue, Hang Wang, Hongbin Sun, Yixiao Ge, Ying Shan, et al. Meta-adapter: An online few-shot learner for vision-language model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:55361--55374, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

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

    K Soomro. Ucf101: A dataset of 101 human actions classes from videos in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.0402 , 2012

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Meta-adam: An meta-learned adaptive optimizer with momentum for few-shot learning

    Siyuan Sun and Hongyang Gao. Meta-adam: An meta-learned adaptive optimizer with momentum for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 36, pages 65441--65455, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Matching networks for one shot learning

    Oriol Vinyals, Charles Blundell, Timothy Lillicrap, Daan Wierstra, et al. Matching networks for one shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems , 29, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Learning robust global representations by penalizing local predictive power

    Haohan Wang, Songwei Ge, Zachary Lipton, and Eric P Xing. Learning robust global representations by penalizing local predictive power. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Generalizing from a few examples: A survey on few-shot learning

    Yaqing Wang, Quanming Yao, James T Kwok, and Lionel M Ni. Generalizing from a few examples: A survey on few-shot learning. ACM computing surveys (csur) , 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    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 society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 3485--3492. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    Information-theoretic analysis of generalization capability of learning algorithms

    Aolin Xu and Maxim Raginsky. Information-theoretic analysis of generalization capability of learning algorithms. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    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

    2024

  37. [45]

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

    Renrui Zhang, Wei Zhang, Rongyao Fang, Peng Gao, Kunchang Li, Jifeng Dai, Yu Qiao, and Hongsheng Li. Tip-adapter: Training-free adaption of clip for few-shot classification. In European conference on computer vision , pages 493--510. Springer, 2022

  38. [46]

    Lora-fa: Memory-efficient low-rank adaptation for large language models fine-tuning

    Longteng Zhang, Lin Zhang, Shaohuai Shi, Xiaowen Chu, and Bo Li. Lora-fa: Memory-efficient low-rank adaptation for large language models fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03303 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Metadiff: Meta-learning with conditional diffusion for few-shot learning

    Baoquan Zhang, Chuyao Luo, Demin Yu, Xutao Li, Huiwei Lin, Yunming Ye, and Bowen Zhang. Metadiff: Meta-learning with conditional diffusion for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, pages 16687--16695, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey

    Jingyi Zhang, Jiaxing Huang, Sheng Jin, and Shijian Lu. Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Conditional prompt learning for vision-language models

    Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. Conditional prompt learning for vision-language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 16816--16825, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Learning to prompt for vision-language models

    Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. Learning to prompt for vision-language models. International Journal of Computer Vision , 130(9):2337--2348, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    A comprehensive survey on pretrained foundation models: A history from bert to chatgpt

    Ce Zhou, Qian Li, Chen Li, Jun Yu, Yixin Liu, Guangjing Wang, Kai Zhang, Cheng Ji, Qiben Yan, Lifang He, et al. A comprehensive survey on pretrained foundation models: A history from bert to chatgpt. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics , pages 1--65, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Less is more: A closer look at semantic-based few-shot learning

    Chunpeng Zhou, Zhi Yu, Xilu Yuan, Sheng Zhou, Jiajun Bu, and Haishuai Wang. Less is more: A closer look at semantic-based few-shot learning. Information Fusion , 114:102672, 2025

    2025

  45. [53]

    Transductive few-shot learning with prototype-based label propagation by iterative graph refinement

    Hao Zhu and Piotr Koniusz. Transductive few-shot learning with prototype-based label propagation by iterative graph refinement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 23996--24006, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Asymmetry in low-rank adapters of foundation models

    Jiacheng Zhu, Kristjan Greenewald, Kimia Nadjahi, Haitz S \'a ez de Oc \'a riz Borde, Rickard Br \"u el Gabrielsson, Leshem Choshen, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Mikhail Yurochkin, and Justin Solomon. Asymmetry in low-rank adapters of foundation models. In Forty-first International Confe...

    2024

  47. [55]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.