Vision Graph Prompting via Semantic Low-Rank Decomposition

Jiahuan Zhou; Zichen Liu; Zixiang Ai

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Vision Graph Prompting via Semantic Low-Rank Decomposition

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Semantically connected vision-graph nodes share dominant PCA components, so a frozen ViG with three low-rank prompts matches full fine-tuning.

desk verdict A useful PEFT method for Vision GNNs, but the low-rank semantic story is likely a KNN artifact and the Eq. 9/12 mismatch needs fixing before reproduction. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04121 v2 pith:JURU5HCY submitted 2025-05-07 cs.CV

Zixiang Ai , Zichen Liu , Jiahuan Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords visiongraphpromptingparameter-efficientfine-tuninglow-rankdecompositionGNNvisualprompttuningneuralnetworkssemantictransferlearning

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 GNNs represent an image as a graph of patches, and this paper argues that the semantic information carried by such a graph is concentrated in low-rank components of the feature space. Building on that observation, it introduces Vision Graph Prompting, a parameter-efficient fine-tuning method that freezes the ViG backbone and trains three low-rank prompt modules at the graph, edge, and node levels. The method is reported to match or exceed full fine-tuning across ten vision classification datasets while using about 94.6% fewer trainable parameters, and to transfer to chemistry and biology graph benchmarks. A curious reader would care because this reframes visual prompting for graph backbones as a low-rank semantic operation rather than a set of attention-style tokens.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the semantic low-rank decomposition: a shared MLP $MLP_s: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}^r$ maps each $d$-dimensional node feature to a compact semantic vector with $r \ll d$, and three low-rank prompt matrices $P_g, P_e, P_n \in \mathbb{R}^{r \times d}$ fold that vector back into the full feature space at the graph, edge, and node levels. SeLo-Graph uses virtual nodes to alter topology, while SeLo-Edge and SeLo-Node modify the aggregation and update steps of graph convolution respectively. This carries the argument by ensuring the trainable prompt capacity is spent on the presumed semantic subspace, filtering high-frequency local detail.

What would settle it

Take a ViG and compute the PCA spectrum of node features for three graph constructions — KNN, spatial adjacency, and random neighborhoods; if the eigenvalue decay is just as sharp for non-semantic neighborhoods, the low-rank 'semantic' claim is an artifact, and VGP should be re-tested with random low-rank prompt projections as a control.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that semantically connected nodes in a ViG graph share dominant PCA components, so semantic information lies in a low-dimensional subspace of the latent feature space. To exploit this, VGP projects each node feature into a low-rank semantic space with a shared MLP and composes it with three prompt matrices: SeLo-Graph appends trainable virtual nodes that dynamically link to nearby nodes, SeLo-Edge propagates the aggregated low-rank neighbor semantics into each node update, and SeLo-Node blends the low-rank semantic component back into the original node feature. The appendix estimates the semantic rank at roughly 50 to 60 against a feature dimension of 768. With the backbone frozen, only the prompts and a downstream head are trained; experiments report an average accuracy of 89.6% versus 89.0% for full fine-tuning on the ten vision datasets, and gains on seven of nine chemistry and biology graph datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that semantically connected graph nodes share dominant PCA components because visual semantics is genuinely low-rank; since edges are drawn by K-nearest-neighbor search in the same feature space, this concentration could be an artifact of the graph-construction rule rather than a fact about semantics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A frozen ViG can be adapted to downstream classification at accuracy comparable to full fine-tuning, cutting trainable parameters by about 94.6% on average and adding only about 3.1% extra FLOPs.
On the ten vision benchmarks, VGP beats the strongest applied visual-prompting baseline by an average of 5.0 accuracy points, including on fine-grained and small-sample datasets.
The same three prompt modules transfer to chemistry and biology graph classification, outperforming full fine-tuning on seven of nine datasets and previous graph-prompting adapters.
The method is robust to its main hyperparameters: rank $r=32$ and blending factors $\alpha=\beta=0.2$ work across datasets with a broad plateau.

Reading between the lines

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

An extension the paper does not test: because ViG builds edges by K-nearest-neighbor search in the very feature space used for the PCA analysis, the low-rank 'semantic' property may be partly a by-product of that construction rule; re-running the prompts on spatially built graphs would separate semantic low-rankness from KNN-induced similarity.
If the low-rank semantics is generic across graph backbones, the same three prompts could be applied to other graph-based vision models or point-cloud GNNs by retraining only the low-rank MLP and prompt matrices, without changing the recipe.
The reported sensitivity table suggests rank could be set per block from the PCA spectrum of that block's features, rather than fixed globally at 32, potentially improving parameter efficiency on deeper models.
The strong graph-domain results imply a testable hypothesis the paper leaves open: molecular and protein graphs may inherit low-rank structure from their pre-training features, so VGP-style prompts might work even without task-specific graph pre-training.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You asked about arXiv:2505.04121 (VGP). Short version: it's a solid, well-tested PEFT method for Vision GNNs, with the first prompting framework specifically for ViG, but the paper's central "low-rank semantics" claim is weakly supported and there's a formal gap between two key equations that needs fixing before I'd fully trust the reproducibility.

What's new: VGP combines VPT-style virtual nodes, low-rank adapters, and graph-structure prompts into a single method for frozen ViG backbones. The three components—SeLo-Graph, SeLo-Edge, SeLo-Node—are sensible, and the ablation in Table 3 shows each adds a clear gain. Experiments cover ten vision benchmarks and nine graph benchmarks with standard splits, and the code is released. That's more than many PEFT papers ship.

Where it stumbles: first, the motivating observation that semantically connected nodes share PCA components is likely an artifact of ViG's KNN graph construction—nodes are connected precisely because they're close in feature space, so sharing dominant PCs is almost forced. The authors even acknowledge the KNN construction in Eq. 1, but don't address this trivial explanation. Second, no error bars or seeds are reported anywhere, which makes the "comparable to full fine-tuning" claim hard to judge; the gaps on individual datasets often look within run-to-run noise. Third, and more load-bearing: Eq. 9 defines the edge prompt as a normalized convex replacement of the center node, while Eq. 12 in the analysis section defines an additive, unnormalized update that does not reduce to Eq. 9 even at beta=0. The paper never connects these. Since the ablation doesn't say which version was implemented, a reader cannot reproduce the reported accuracies from the text alone. The code may resolve this, but the paper should state the exact algorithm.

None of these are fatal—the method appears to work, and the low-rank component design is a legitimate engineering contribution even if the "semantic" motivation is overclaimed. The formal inconsistency is fixable with a short derivation or a clarification that Eq. 9 is a conceptual simplification.

Who should read this: anyone working on parameter-efficient adaptation for graph-structured vision backbones, or on combining prompting with GNNs. It's a niche architecture, so not a must-read for the broader PEFT community, but it's a genuine addition.

Recommendation: worth a serious referee. I'd ask for a major revision that adds seeds/error bars, resolves Eq. 9 versus Eq. 12, and either de-emphasizes or re-frames the PCA observation.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Vision Graph Prompting (VGP), a parameter-efficient fine-tuning method for Vision GNNs. It introduces three prompt components—SeLo-Graph, SeLo-Edge, and SeLo-Node—that are designed around the claimed observation that semantically connected nodes in vision graphs share low-rank PCA structure. The method is evaluated on ten image classification datasets and nine chemistry/biology graph benchmarks, reporting accuracy comparable to or better than full fine-tuning while updating roughly 5% of the parameters. The paper also includes ablations of the three components, rank dimension, and blending factors, plus an efficiency analysis.

Significance. If the claims hold, VGP would be a useful contribution to parameter-efficient fine-tuning for graph-based vision backbones, an area with few existing prompting methods. The paper's strengths are the breadth of evaluation (external benchmarks for both vision and graph tasks), the component-level ablation, the efficiency table, and the public code release. However, the central 'low-rank semantic' insight is not established as a property of semantics rather than a byproduct of the KNN graph construction, and the headline comparison with full fine-tuning lacks statistical support. The method may still work as an adapter, but the paper as written overstates the interpretability and the quantitative certainty of its core claims.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.3, Eq. (9) and Section 4.5, Eq. (12)] The two formal specifications of the edge prompt are not algebraically equivalent. Equation (9) applies a normalized convex combination to the center node before convolution, while Eq. (12) applies the edge term as an unnormalized additive residual after the update and drops the normalization. The manuscript provides no derivation linking the two, and the ablation in Table 3 does not state which formulation was implemented. Because Tables 1 and 3 depend on the exact edge-prompt update, a reader cannot reproduce the reported numbers from the text; please specify the implemented form, justify it, and reconcile Eq. (9) with Eq. (12).
[Section 5.3, Tables 1-3] No standard deviations, number of seeds, or significance tests are reported. The headline claim 'comparable to full fine-tuning' rests on average accuracy gaps (e.g., 89.6 vs. 89.0 in Table 1) that are smaller than typical run-to-run variation on fine-grained benchmarks, and several per-dataset entries (CUB, NABirds, Flowers, CIFAR10) are actually lower than full fine-tuning. Please report multiple seeds with error bars and a statistical test for the key comparisons, especially the comparison against full fine-tuning and against the strongest baseline InsVP.
[Section 3 and Appendix A.3] The observation that connected nodes share dominant PCA components is confounded by the KNN rule in Eq. (1). Since ViG connects each node to its nearest neighbors in the same feature space, connected nodes are close by construction and will share principal components even without semantic structure. The visualizations in Figure 2 and Appendix A.3 do not include a control condition (e.g., random node pairs matched for feature distance, or KNN graphs on non-semantic features), so the paper's stated core insight that 'semantic information within vision graphs predominantly resides in the low-rank components' is not currently supported. Please add such a control or temper the claim accordingly.
[Section 5.3, Table 2] The extension to chemistry/biology tasks is justified by the hypothesis that low-rank patterns exist in molecular and protein graphs, but no analysis of that property is provided for these datasets. Since the entire prompt design is motivated by the low-rank semantic observation, the graph-task results do not demonstrate that the low-rank mechanism transfers; they only show that the specific set of prompts improves GIN prompting baselines. Please provide a low-rank analysis on graph datasets or reframe the contribution of these experiments.

minor comments (6)

[Section 4.2, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) writes cosine similarity as a raw dot product, but cosine similarity normally requires normalization; please clarify whether the top-K selection uses normalized features.
[Section 4.3, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) uses \|N_s(x_c)\| to denote set cardinality, which is unconventional, and the parenthesis after N_s(x_c) is unclosed. Please fix the notation.
[Section 5.4, Figure 4] Figure 4 has no axis labels and the red star is not described in the caption, so the dependence of accuracy on alpha and beta cannot be read reliably. Please add axes labels, a legend, and error bars if multiple seeds were used.
[Appendix A.3] Appendix A.3 estimates an observed rank of 50-60 for CUB and Flowers, but the experiments use r=32; the link between the observed rank and the chosen hyperparameter is not explained. Please clarify how the chosen rank follows from the analysis.
[Section 5.2] The statement that all methods were trained for 100 epochs and then '10 additional epochs for probing the optimal result' is ambiguous; please clarify whether this is an evaluation protocol, early stopping, or a model selection procedure.
[Appendix A.1, Table 5] Table 5 reports FLOPs only for full fine-tuning and VGP; without the same metric for the other PEFT baselines, the conclusion of 'little additional overhead' is not fully contextualized. Please include FLOPs for the compared methods or qualify the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: reported results come from external benchmarks, not from the low-rank observation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: ViG constructs a KNN graph in feature space (Eq. 1); PCA on those features shows connected nodes share dominant components; prompts are therefore designed as low-rank decompositions (Eqs. 5, 8-10); and the resulting frozen-backbone adapter is evaluated on ten vision and nine graph benchmarks. None of the reported accuracies in Tables 1-3 is produced by substituting the low-rank observation into an equation; the observation is used only as design motivation. The evaluation is external, with standard splits, and the method's parameters are optimized on the training splits, which is ordinary fine-tuning, not circularity. The only element with a flavor of triviality is the observation itself: since ViG selects neighbors by K-nearest-neighbor in the same feature space, connected nodes are close in that space, so their dominant PCA components will tend to agree by construction. That makes the 'semantic low-rank' insight partially a restatement of the KNN rule rather than an independent empirical discovery, but it does not infect the benchmark results. No load-bearing self-citation is present: the authors' prior InsVP appears only as a baseline. No uniqueness theorem is imported. The paper's explicit 'we hypothesize' for chemistry/biology low-rank structure (Section 5.3) is a stated hypothesis, not a derived prediction. The inconsistency between Eq. 9 and Eq. 12 is a reproducibility gap, not circularity. Overall score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The 'virtual nodes' are trainable prompt parameters, and the low-rank matrices Pg, Pe, Pn are learned weights, not new scientific objects.

free parameters (5)

Rank r = 32
Selected by ablation on CUB, CIFAR, GTSRB, SVHN (Table 4); enters Eqs. 5, 8, 10.
Blending factor alpha = 0.2
Selected by ablation in Figure 4; controls SeLo-Node mixing in Eq. 10.
Blending factor beta = 0.2
Selected by ablation in Figure 4; controls SeLo-Edge mixing in Eq. 9.
Number of graph prompt nodes M = not reported
Defined in Eq. 5 but never specified in the paper; affects capacity and results.
PCA threshold epsilon = 0.25
Used in Appendix A.3 to estimate rank 50 to 60; chosen ad hoc without sensitivity analysis.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption K-nearest-neighbor graph construction in feature space carries semantic relationships (ViG premise).
Inherited from Han et al. 2022; used in Eq. 6 to build neighborhoods for prompt nodes.
domain assumption Semantic content of an image graph is concentrated in a low-rank subspace of features.
The core insight, inferred from PCA visualizations in Figure 2 and Appendix A.3 rather than proven.
domain assumption The same low-rank assumption transfers to molecular and protein graph datasets.
Section 5.3 hypothesizes low-rank patterns in chemical bonds and protein interactions; no analysis of these graphs is given.
domain assumption Freezing all backbone parameters still leaves enough representation for transfer.
Standard PEFT premise; not tested in this paper beyond empirical accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vision Graph Prompting via Semantic Low-Rank Decomposition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JURU5HCY

@misc{pith2026250504121,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vision Graph Prompting via Semantic Low-Rank Decomposition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JURU5HCY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04121}
}

read the original abstract

Vision GNN (ViG) demonstrates superior performance by representing images as graph structures, providing a more natural way to capture irregular semantic patterns beyond traditional grid or sequence-based representations. To efficiently adapt ViG to downstream tasks, parameter-efficient fine-tuning techniques like visual prompting become increasingly essential. However, existing prompting methods are primarily designed for Transformer-based models, neglecting the rich topological relationships among nodes and edges in graph-based representations, limiting their capacity to model complex semantics. In this paper, we propose Vision Graph Prompting (VGP), a novel framework tailored for vision graph structures. Our core insight reveals that semantically connected components in the graph exhibit low-rank properties. Building on this observation, we introduce a semantic low-rank prompting method that decomposes low-rank semantic features and integrates them with prompts on vision graph topologies, capturing both global structural patterns and fine-grained semantic dependencies. Extensive experiments demonstrate our method significantly improves ViG's transfer performance on diverse downstream tasks, achieving results comparable to full fine-tuning while maintaining parameter efficiency. Our code is available at https://github.com/zhoujiahuan1991/ICML2025-VGP.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04121 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Visualization of ViG graph structures using PCA and t-SNE. This figure illustrates the graph structures in ViG, where semantically related components exhibit shared principal features and form a single compact cluster in t-SNE embeddings. The visualization underscores the low-rank nature of semantic information. grid-based representations in CNNs (LeCun et al., 1998; Krizhevsky et al., 2017) or the sequential token… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Observation on ViG graph structures and principal components. The center patch (red star) is randomly selected from the primary semantic region, with neighboring patches (blue dot) linked via edges. PCA is applied to patches from the same image group (a, b), mapping the first three components to the RGB color channels. Despite variations in shape, texture, and color, the ViG graph effectively connects semantically r… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Pipeline of Vision Graph Prompting via semantic low-rank decomposition. Specifically, we design: (i) SeLo-Graph Prompt as trainable virtual nodes that dynamically form edges with existing nodes to capture global semantic dependencies, (ii) SeLo-Edge Prompt with low-rank decomposition to enhance feature propagation between semantically connected nodes, and (iii) SeLo-Node Prompt to refine fine-grained semantic inform… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Ablation on blending factors α and β. The red star marks the best result. Ablation on Rank Dimension r. In our semantic low-rank prompt design, the rank dimension r is an essential hyperparameter. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Visualization of ViG graph structures, the first three major PCA components, and the average distribution of PCA component coefficient magnitudes. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

UPP: Unified Point-Level Prompting for Robust Point Cloud Analysis
cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

UPP unifies denoising and completion as point-level prompts in a frozen pre-trained point cloud transformer, improving classification accuracy on noisy and incomplete point clouds without updating backbone weights.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Exploring visual prompts for adapting large-scale models

Bahng, H., Jahanian, A., Sankaranarayanan, S., and Isola, P. Exploring visual prompts for adapting large-scale models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.17274,

arXiv
[4]

Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., and Fei-Fei, L. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 248–255. Ieee,

2009
[5]

Our approach does not require the re-training of the entire model, which helps to mitigate the computational cost typically associated with full fine-tuning

Attributed to our semantic low-rank decomposition design, we save a lot of computation by reducing feature dimension to low-rank dimension for computing, while extracting critical semantic information and filtering out disruption of noisy local details. Our approach does not require the re-training of the entire model, which helps to mitigate the computat...

work page 2017
[8]

Vi- sion hgnn: An image is more than a graph of nodes

Han, Y ., Wang, P., Kundu, S., Ding, Y ., and Wang, Z. Vi- sion hgnn: An image is more than a graph of nodes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 19878–19888, 2023b. Hu, W., Liu, B., Gomes, J., Zitnik, M., Liang, P., Pande, V ., and Leskovec, J. Strategies for pre-training graph neural networks. arXiv preprint a...

arXiv 1905
[13]

Y ., et al

Netzer, Y ., Wang, T., Coates, A., Bissacco, A., Wu, B., Ng, A. Y ., et al. Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning. In NIPS workshop on deep learning and unsupervised feature learning, volume 2011, pp

2011
[14]

and Zisserman, A

Nilsback, M.-E. and Zisserman, A. Automated flower clas- sification over a large number of classes. In 2008 Sixth Indian conference on computer vision, graphics & image processing, pp. 722–729. IEEE,

2008
[2008]

and Sch¨utze, H

Schick, T. and Sch¨utze, H. Exploiting cloze questions for few shot text classification and natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07676,

arXiv 2001
[2009]

An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

Dosovitskiy, A. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929,

arXiv 2010

Show all 18 references

[2011]

Kipf, T. N. and Welling, M. Variational graph auto-encoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07308, 2016a. Kipf, T. N. and Welling, M. Semi-supervised classifica- tion with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016b. Krizhevsky, A., Hinton, G., et al. Learn...

arXiv
[2014]

D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al

Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877–1901,

1901
[2015]

The caltech-ucsd birds-200-2011 dataset,

Wah, C., Branson, S., Welinder, P., Perona, P., and Belongie, S. The caltech-ucsd birds-200-2011 dataset,

2011
[2017]

The learning rate is set as 0.001 and the weight decay is 0.05

optimizer for optimization and implement cosine learning rate annealing. The learning rate is set as 0.001 and the weight decay is 0.05. Regarding the graph tasks, we follow the approach of GPF-Plus (Fang et al., 2023), utilizing a widely used 5-layer GIN as the underlying arc...

2023
[2020]

M., Yang, Y ., and Wang, C

Fang, T., Zhang, Y . M., Yang, Y ., and Wang, C. Prompt tuning for graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15240,

arXiv
[2021]

Graphprompt: Uni- fying pre-training and downstream tasks for graph neural networks

Liu, Z., Yu, X., Fang, Y ., and Zhang, X. Graphprompt: Uni- fying pre-training and downstream tasks for graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pp. 417–428,

2023
[2022]

Food-101– mining discriminative components with random forests

Bossard, L., Guillaumin, M., and Van Gool, L. Food-101– mining discriminative components with random forests. In Computer vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European con- ference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, pro- ceedings, part VI 13, pp. 446–461. Springer,

2014
[2023]

Eˆ 2vpt: An effective and efficient approach for visual prompt tuning

Han, C., Wang, Q., Cui, Y ., Cao, Z., Wang, W., Qi, S., and Liu, D. Eˆ 2vpt: An effective and efficient approach for visual prompt tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13770, 2023a. Han, K., Wang, Y ., Guo, J., Tang, Y ., and Wu, E. Vision gnn: An image is worth graph of nodes. A...

arXiv
[2024]

Stop: Integrated spatial-temporal dynamic prompting for video understanding

Liu, Z., Xu, K., Su, B., Zou, X., Peng, Y ., and Zhou, J. Stop: Integrated spatial-temporal dynamic prompting for video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15973,

arXiv
[2025]

and Hutter, F

Loshchilov, I. and Hutter, F. Decoupled weight decay regu- larization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101,

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Exploring visual prompts for adapting large-scale models

Bahng, H., Jahanian, A., Sankaranarayanan, S., and Isola, P. Exploring visual prompts for adapting large-scale models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.17274,

arXiv

[2] [4]

Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., and Fei-Fei, L. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 248–255. Ieee,

2009

[3] [5]

Our approach does not require the re-training of the entire model, which helps to mitigate the computational cost typically associated with full fine-tuning

Attributed to our semantic low-rank decomposition design, we save a lot of computation by reducing feature dimension to low-rank dimension for computing, while extracting critical semantic information and filtering out disruption of noisy local details. Our approach does not require the re-training of the entire model, which helps to mitigate the computat...

work page 2017

[4] [8]

Vi- sion hgnn: An image is more than a graph of nodes

Han, Y ., Wang, P., Kundu, S., Ding, Y ., and Wang, Z. Vi- sion hgnn: An image is more than a graph of nodes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 19878–19888, 2023b. Hu, W., Liu, B., Gomes, J., Zitnik, M., Liang, P., Pande, V ., and Leskovec, J. Strategies for pre-training graph neural networks. arXiv preprint a...

arXiv 1905

[5] [13]

Y ., et al

Netzer, Y ., Wang, T., Coates, A., Bissacco, A., Wu, B., Ng, A. Y ., et al. Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning. In NIPS workshop on deep learning and unsupervised feature learning, volume 2011, pp

2011

[6] [14]

and Zisserman, A

Nilsback, M.-E. and Zisserman, A. Automated flower clas- sification over a large number of classes. In 2008 Sixth Indian conference on computer vision, graphics & image processing, pp. 722–729. IEEE,

2008

[7] [2008]

and Sch¨utze, H

Schick, T. and Sch¨utze, H. Exploiting cloze questions for few shot text classification and natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07676,

arXiv 2001

[8] [2009]

An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

Dosovitskiy, A. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929,

arXiv 2010