Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Do We Really Need a Large Number of Visual Prompts?

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 2305.17223 v2 pith:D2FEIB33 submitted 2023-05-26 cs.CV cs.AI

classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords promptsnumberperformancefine-tuninginputmethodspromptvisual
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Due to increasing interest in adapting models on resource-constrained edges, parameter-efficient transfer learning has been widely explored. Among various methods, Visual Prompt Tuning (VPT), prepending learnable prompts to input space, shows competitive fine-tuning performance compared to training of full network parameters. However, VPT increases the number of input tokens, resulting in additional computational overhead. In this paper, we analyze the impact of the number of prompts on fine-tuning performance and self-attention operation in a vision transformer architecture. Through theoretical and empirical analysis we show that adding more prompts does not lead to linear performance improvement. Further, we propose a Prompt Condensation (PC) technique that aims to prevent performance degradation from using a small number of prompts. We validate our methods on FGVC and VTAB-1k tasks and show that our approach reduces the number of prompts by ~70% while maintaining accuracy.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools