Language-Aware Information Maximization for Transductive Few-Shot CLIP

Ghassen Baklouti; Ismail Ben Ayed; Maxime Zanella

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Language-Aware Information Maximization for Transductive Few-Shot CLIP

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Transductive few-shot CLIP can be improved substantially by maximizing language-aware mutual information while fine-tuning only low-rank parameters.

desk verdict Solid incremental transductive CLIP paper with useful LoRA insight, but the 'large margin' claim is under-tested: only TransCLIP among transductive VLM baselines, no error bars, and the fair-comparison baseline weights are hand-picked. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00305 v1 pith:SGYGLW7B submitted 2025-08-30 cs.CV

Ghassen Baklouti , Maxime Zanella , Ismail Ben Ayed This is my paper

classification cs.CV

keywords transductivefew-shotlearningvision-languagemodelsCLIPinformationmaximizationlow-rankadaptationLoRAzero-shotclassificationparameter-efficientfine-tuning

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

The paper tries to establish that transductive few-shot adaptation of CLIP is best done with a loss that couples the vision and text modalities directly, rather than relying on vision-only clustering or generative mixture models. In transduction, inference is done jointly over the whole unlabeled test set, letting the model exploit the test distribution. The proposed LIMO loss maximizes a language-aware mutual information term, anchors predictions to CLIP's zero-shot outputs with a KL penalty, and tunes only a small number of low-rank parameters in both encoders. Across 11 datasets, it reports 77.8% average top-1 accuracy in 2-shot, 80.2% in 4-shot, and 84.9% in 16-shot, beating the strongest transductive CLIP baseline by roughly 4 to 6 points. The practical point is that a few labeled examples plus the unlabeled test set can adapt a large vision-language model, and that updating internal parameters—not just the output layer—is decisive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the LIMO loss: L = C − I + T, where I = λ_ent H(C) − λ_cond H(C|X) is the mutual information between images X and textual class descriptions C, computed from softmax predictions over the unlabeled query set; T = λ_text Σ_i KL(p_i ∥ ŷ_i) is a KL penalty that keeps adapted predictions close to the frozen zero-shot predictions; and C is the cross-entropy on the few labeled shots. Minimizing this loss while updating only low-rank LoRA matrices in both the vision and text encoders is what produces the reported gains.

What would settle it

Run LIMO on a dataset where CLIP's zero-shot class names are deliberately mismatched, for example with labels permuted so zero-shot accuracy is near chance, comparing λ_text = 0.1 against λ_text = 0. If the KL-anchored version does not drop relative to the unanchored version, the zero-shot anchor is not actually constraining behavior; if it drops, the anchor assumption is confirmed as load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that transductive few-shot CLIP adaptation should maximize a language-aware mutual information between images and textual class descriptions, rather than clustering visual features alone. Concretely, LIMO minimizes L = C − I + T, where C is the cross-entropy on the labeled shots, I = λ_ent H(C) − λ_cond H(C|X) is the mutual information estimated from softmax predictions over all query images, and T = λ_text Σ_i KL(p_i ∥ ŷ_i) is a regularizer that keeps each adapted prediction close to the zero-shot CLIP prediction. The same loss is optimized under three fine-tuning regimes—LoRA on both encoders, last-visual-projector tuning, and prompt tuning—with LoRA giving the

Load-bearing premise

The KL penalty trusts CLIP's zero-shot predictions, computed once before adaptation, to be a reliable guide; if they are wrong or miscalibrated for a dataset, the penalty drags the adapted model toward those errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The result implies that generative mixture models are not required for transductive CLIP; a direct information-maximization objective can capture the test distribution.
It implies that updating inner representations via LoRA is safe and beneficial at 2–16 shots, overturning the earlier vision-only practice of freezing the encoder and tuning only the output layer.
Because the gains persist at 16 shots, transduction remains valuable even when labeled data grow, contrary to earlier findings that transductive gains shrink with more shots.
The objective is transferable across parameterizations: adding it to prompt tuning and last-projector tuning improves both, so it can be dropped into other CLIP adaptation pipelines.
The recipe needs only a handful of hyperparameters fixed across datasets, which simplifies deployment.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the fixed zero-shot anchor means LIMO inherits CLIP's biases; on datasets where zero-shot CLIP is systematically wrong, λ_text would need to be reduced, or the anchor re-estimated, to keep the gains.
Editorial inference: the marginal-entropy weight λ_ent = 10 assumes the test set is roughly class-balanced; on heavily imbalanced test distributions the same weighting would likely hurt.
Editorial inference: replacing the single-prompt zero-shot predictions with prompt-averaged or self-distilled targets could relax dependence on the prompt template and extend the method.
Editorial inference: since the paper's comparison with a LoRA-based TransCLIP variant isolates the loss from the PEFT scheme, applying LIMO's objective to adapters or prompt tokens beyond the tested variants is a natural test of the claim that the loss is the main driver.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid incremental paper with an arguably overbroad headline. The method is a clean combination of TIM's mutual-information loss, TransCLIP's KL anchor to zero-shot predictions, and CLIP-LoRA's low-rank adaptation, and the empirical work is extensive: 11 datasets, three backbones, ablations. The gains over TransCLIP are real and consistent, and the discovery that LoRA helps in transductive few-shot is a useful data point. The reader's conditional verdict is fair.

The main soft spot is the abstract's claim to outperform 'the very recent transductive few-shot CLIP methods' when only TransCLIP appears in the tables. The related work cites Martin et al. (CVPR 2024) and Kalantidis et al. (ZLaP), but neither is evaluated. Since one of this paper's authors is also on Martin et al., the omission is conspicuous. The stress-test note has this right. The margin over TransCLIP is large, but the plural claim needs either those baselines or a rewording.

There are also secondary issues: no error bars or standard deviations despite averaging over three seeds; hyperparameters (especially λtext) are tuned on DTD only, and Table 4 shows λtext is very sensitive (62.4 at 0.1 vs 46.5 at 10). The TransCLIP-LoRA 'fair comparison' baseline uses hand-assigned weights (CE=2, GMM=2, KL=1, Lap=0.05) with no reported tuning procedure. That doesn't sink the method, but it gives a reviewer room to ask whether the 2.5% gap over TransCLIP-LoRA is partly due to a poorly-tuned baseline.

The math itself is fine: the objective is a heuristic transductive loss, not a fitted predictor, so circularity is low. The generalization claims (TIM and CLIP-LoRA as special cases) hold by inspection. The KL anchor to zero-shot predictions is a legitimate design concern, but the paper validates it indirectly; it's a minor point compared to missing baselines.

Who is this for: anyone working on few-shot adaptation of VLMs, especially transductive methods. It deserves a serious referee — the experimental breadth and the PEFT insight are enough to warrant review, even if the paper needs major revisions on baseline coverage and variance reporting. I'd send it to review with a request to add Martin et al. and ZLaP, report error bars, and either tune or justify the TransCLIP-LoRA weights.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LIMO, a transductive few-shot CLIP method combining a cross-entropy loss on labeled shots, a mutual-information term (marginal minus conditional entropy) computed over query predictions, and a KL-divergence regularizer that keeps predictions close to the initial text-driven zero-shot outputs. The method is optimized with LoRA on both vision and text encoders, and experiments are reported across 11 datasets and three CLIP backbones. The central claim is that LIMO outperforms recent transductive and inductive few-shot CLIP methods by a large margin, with average top-1 accuracy of 77.8% (2-shot), 80.2% (4-shot), and 84.9% (16-shot) on ViT-B/16, compared to 74.2/75.9/78.4% for TransCLIP. Ablations study each loss term, different fine-tuning strategies (LoRA, CoOp, last visual projector), and hyperparameter sensitivity.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper would make a useful contribution: it shows that an information-maximization objective can be extended to vision-language models with a text-driven KL regularizer, and that LoRA-style PEFT is beneficial in transductive few-shot CLIP. The manuscript is transparent in providing code, covers many datasets and backbones, and includes component ablations and an orthogonality analysis. The 'umbrella method' view of LIMO as a generalization of TIM and CLIP-LoRA is conceptually clean. However, the headline claim of outperforming 'very recent transductive few-shot CLIP methods' is currently supported by only one transductive VLM baseline, and the statistical evidence lacks error bars; these gaps need to be addressed before the significance can be fully assessed.

major comments (3)

[§2, Table 1] The abstract claims LIMO 'outperforms the very recent transductive few-shot CLIP methods by a large margin,' but the experiments compare against only one transductive VLM baseline, TransCLIP. Martin et al. (2024) and Kalantidis et al. (2024, ZLaP) are cited in Related Work as recent transductive VLM methods but do not appear in Tables 1, 2, 6, or 7. Since the plural claim is load-bearing, please add these methods under the same evaluation protocol (same backbones, seeds, datasets), or explicitly temper the claim to 'outperforms TransCLIP' and explain why other transductive VLM methods are excluded.
[§4.4, Table 5] The TransCLIP-LoRA baseline is introduced for a fair comparison, but its four weighting factors (CE=2, GMM=2, KL=1, Lap=0.05) are assigned without a reported tuning or validation procedure. The paper uses the resulting ~2.5% average degradation to conclude that the LIMO objective is superior to the TransCLIP objective. Hand-picked baseline weights can confound this conclusion. Please report a hyperparameter search or use the original TransCLIP hyperparameters, and show that the conclusion is robust across a reasonable grid.
[§4.2 and §4.4, Table 4] Hyperparameters λ_ent, λ_cond, λ_text, LoRA rank/dropout, and the number of iterations are fixed across all datasets after a sensitivity analysis on DTD only. Table 4 shows λ_text is highly sensitive (accuracy drops from 62.43 to 46.49 as λ_text goes from 0.1 to 10). Because the same hyperparameters are applied to all 11 datasets, the reported averages may reflect DTD-specific tuning. Please provide cross-dataset validation of the chosen hyperparameters or report performance under a small grid across multiple datasets. In addition, no standard deviations or confidence intervals are reported even though results are averaged over three seeds; several margins in Table 1 are small (e.g., 2-shot Food101: 86.3 vs 87.0), so the reader cannot assess whether the claimed improvements are statistically meaningful.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and §1] Typographical errors: 'tranduction' in the Abstract, 'remainig' in §1, 'test encoders' in §3.3, and 'closet support prototype' in §2 should be corrected.
[Figure 1] The figure caption does not indicate whether the plotted values are means over seeds or include variability. Adding error bars or stating that no error bars are available would improve clarity.
[Eq. (10)] The KL regularizer anchors predictions to the zero-shot outputs ŷ_i. This is a reasonable design choice, but its robustness when zero-shot predictions are miscalibrated for a given dataset is only tested indirectly through DTD sensitivity. A brief discussion of this limitation and its mitigation would be helpful.
[Table 4] The caption calls this a 'comprehensive analysis' but it is a single-dataset, single-shot sensitivity study. Consider renaming it 'sensitivity analysis on DTD (2-shot)' to avoid overstatement.
[§3.3] The claim that setting λtext=0, λent=0, and λcond=0 recovers CLIP-LoRA should be stated more carefully: the recovered objective is the cross-entropy term with LoRA parameterization, which matches CLIP-LoRA only if the LoRA placement and initialization are identical. The paper does apply the same LoRA design, but the 'recovery' is at the loss level rather than at the implementation level.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LIMO's objective is explicitly defined and evaluated against external benchmarks; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The LIMO loss in Eq. (4) is explicitly defined as L = CE - I + T, with mutual information and KL terms given by Eqs. (7)-(11). No parameter is fitted to the reported benchmark numbers; the hyperparameters λ_ent, λ_cond, and λ_text are fixed constants (Section 4.2) and only sensitivity-analyzed on a single dataset (Table 4). The KL regularizer in Eq. (10) anchors to the initial zero-shot predictions, but this is a regularizer, not a prediction target: the adapted outputs can deviate from ŷ_i, and the final accuracy is an empirical result, not a quantity forced by construction. Section 3.3's 'umbrella method' statements are exact set-containment observations—TIM is recovered when λ_text=0 and the text encoder is fixed as a linear classifier, and CLIP-LoRA is recovered when all three auxiliary weights are zero—so this is a mathematical relationship, not a circular prediction. The paper's self-citations to TIM, CLIP-LoRA, and TransCLIP are prior published methods used as baselines and design starting points; none of these citations is invoked as an unverified premise that alone forces the paper's conclusions. The empirical comparisons, including the newly introduced TransCLIP-LoRA variant in Table 5, provide independent evidence for the method's performance claims. Concerns about omitted transductive VLM baselines (e.g., Martin et al., Kalantidis et al.) are matters of experimental completeness and correctness risk, not circularity, since the paper's derivation does not depend on those omissions.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or physical postulates. The free parameters are all loss weights and LoRA hyperparameters, selected by hand or via a single-dataset sensitivity study. The axioms are standard information-theoretic definitions plus domain assumptions about CLIP's text embeddings and the usefulness of zero-shot anchors.

free parameters (7)

lambda_ent (marginal entropy weight) = 10
Chosen from DTD 2-shot sensitivity (Table 4), fixed for all experiments.
lambda_cond (conditional entropy weight) = 1
Chosen from DTD 2-shot sensitivity (Table 4), fixed for all experiments.
lambda_text (KL weight) = 0.1
Chosen from DTD 2-shot sensitivity (Table 4), fixed for all experiments.
LoRA rank r = 2
Follows CLIP-LoRA (Zanella & Ben Ayed 2024a); not tuned in this paper.
LoRA dropout p = 0.25
Follows CLIP-LoRA; used to regularize LoRA input.
Number of iterations = 500 * (|S|/K)
Set proportional to the number of labeled samples per class; no tuning reported.
LoRA scaling factor gamma (Eq. 12)
Required by the LoRA update but its value is never specified in the paper.

assumptions (4)

standard math Entropy and mutual information estimates on the query set are computed from softmax probabilities (Eq. 5-9) and are treated as objectives for the categorical distribution over classes.
Standard plug-in estimates, but the use of probabilities as proxies for the true distribution is an unproved approximation.
domain assumption CLIP text embeddings in the 'a photo of a [class]' format provide faithful class descriptions for the target task.
All text prompts are constructed with this template (Section 3.1), and the MI term (Eq. 7) depends entirely on the resulting posterior.
domain assumption The zero-shot predictions used in the KL term (Eq. 10) are computed before adaptation and are beneficial as a regularizer.
Validated only empirically via Table 4 on DTD, not from first principles.
domain assumption Low-rank (LoRA) adaptation with rank 2 is sufficient to capture the transductive adaptation needed.
Chosen following CLIP-LoRA (Zanella & Ben Ayed 2024a), not derived from the problem structure.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Language-Aware Information Maximization for Transductive Few-Shot CLIP." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SGYGLW7B

@misc{pith2026250900305,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Language-Aware Information Maximization for Transductive Few-Shot CLIP},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SGYGLW7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00305}
}

abstract

Transductive few-shot learning has triggered an abundant literature focusing on vision-only models, but is still at a nascent stage within the recent context of foundational vision-language models (VLMs). Only a few recent methods addressed the problem, pointing to the potential of tranduction in VLMs and to the need for VLM-tailored methods. Building on this momentum, we leverage information-theoretic concepts and recent progress in parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT), developing a highly competitive transductive few-shot CLIP method. Specifically, we introduce a novel Language-aware Information MaximizatiOn (LIMO) loss integrating three complementary terms: (i) the mutual information between the vision inputs and the textual class descriptions; (ii) a Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence penalizing deviation of the network's probabilistic outputs from the text-driven zero-shot predictions; and (iii) a standard cross-entropy loss based on the labeled shots. Furthermore, we challenge the commonly followed fine-tuning practices in the context of transductive few-shot learning, and explore PEFT strategies, completely overlooked in this context. Surprisingly, we observe substantial boosts in performances, which points to the potential of adapting a subset of the model's parameters in the transductive few-shot setting. We report comprehensive evaluations, which show that LIMO outperforms the very recent transductive few-shot CLIP methods by a large margin and yields significant gains over the best-performing inductive methods. Our code is publicly available at:\[ \href{https://github.com/ghassenbaklouti/LIMO}{\text{here}} \]

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00305 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[5]

Enhancing remote sensing vision-language models for zero-shot scene classification

Karim El Khoury, Maxime Zanella, Benoît Gérin, Tiffanie Godelaine, Benoît Macq, Saïd Mahmoudi, Christophe De Vleeschouwer, and Ismail Ben Ayed. Enhancing remote sensing vision-language models for zero-shot scene classification. In ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 1–5. IEEE,

work page 2025
[7]

Learning deep representations by mutual information estimation and maximization

R Devon Hjelm, Alex Fedorov, Samuel Lavoie-Marchildon, Karan Grewal, Phil Bachman, Adam Trischler, and Yoshua Bengio. Learning deep representations by mutual information estimation and maximization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06670,

arXiv
[9]

Prototype rectification for few-shot learning

Jinlu Liu, Liang Song, and Yongqiang Qin. Prototype rectification for few-shot learning. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 16, pp. 741–756. Springer,

work page 2020
[11]

Fine-grained visual classification of aircraft.arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.5151,

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

arXiv
[13]

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,

arXiv
[15]

Dylora: Parameter efficient tuning of pre-trained models using dynamic search-free low-rank adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07558,

Mojtaba Valipour, Mehdi Rezagholizadeh, Ivan Kobyzev, and Ali Ghodsi. Dylora: Parameter efficient tuning of pre-trained models using dynamic search-free low-rank adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07558,

arXiv
[17]

Adalora: Adaptive budget allocation for parameter-efficient fine-tuning

Qingru Zhang, Minshuo Chen, Alexander Bukharin, Nikos Karampatziakis, Pengcheng He, Yu Cheng, Weizhu Chen, and Tuo Zhao. Adalora: Adaptive budget allocation for parameter-efficient fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10512,

arXiv
[18]

Bolded values indicate highest accuracy

15 A Ablations on Model Architecture Table 6:Detailed results of state-of-the-art methods in the few-shot setting for the11 datasets with the ViT-B/32 as visual backbone: Top-1 classification accuracy averaged over 3 random seeds is reported. Bolded values indicate highest accuracy. ✓denotes transductive methods, ✗denotes non- transductive methods. ImageN...

work page 2019

Show all 18 references

[2012]

On mutual infor- mation maximization for representation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.13625,

Michael Tschannen, Josip Djolonga, Paul K Rubenstein, Sylvain Gelly, and Mario Lucic. On mutual infor- mation maximization for representation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.13625,

1907 arXiv
[2014]

A unifying mutual information view of metric learning: cross-entropy vs

Malik Boudiaf, Jérôme Rony, Imtiaz Masud Ziko, Eric Granger, Marco Pedersoli, Pablo Piantanida, and Ismail Ben Ayed. A unifying mutual information view of metric learning: cross-entropy vs. pairwise losses. In European conference on computer vision, pp. 548–564. Springer, 2020...

arXiv
[2018]

Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021a

Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021a. Weihua Hu, Takeru Miyato, Seiya Tokui, Eiichi Matsumoto, and Masashi Sugiyam...

arXiv
[2019]

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, pp. 446–461. Springer,

2014
[2020]

Learning to propagate labels: Transductive propagation network for few-shot learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10002,

Yanbin Liu, Juho Lee, Minseop Park, Saehoon Kim, Eunho Yang, Sung Ju Hwang, and Yi Yang. Learning to propagate labels: Transductive propagation network for few-shot learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10002,

arXiv
[2021]

Qdylora: Quantized dynamic low-rank adaptation for efficient large language model tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10462,

Hossein Rajabzadeh, Mojtaba Valipour, Tianshu Zhu, Marzieh Tahaei, Hyock Ju Kwon, Ali Ghodsi, Boxing Chen, and Mehdi Rezagholizadeh. Qdylora: Quantized dynamic low-rank adaptation for efficient large language model tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10462,

arXiv
[2022]

A closer look at few-shot classification

Wei-Yu Chen, Yen-Cheng Liu, Zsolt Kira, Yu-Chiang Frank Wang, and Jia-Bin Huang. A closer look at few-shot classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.04232,

1904 arXiv
[2023]

Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10199,

Elad Ben Zaken, Shauli Ravfogel, and Yoav Goldberg. Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10199,
[2024]

A baseline for few-shot image classification

Guneet S Dhillon, Pratik Chaudhari, Avinash Ravichandran, and Stefano Soatto. A baseline for few-shot image classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.02729,

1909 arXiv
[2025]

Fine-tuning clip’s last visual projector: A few-shot cornucopia.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05270,

Mohammad Fahes, Tuan-Hung Vu, Andrei Bursuc, Patrick Pérez, and Raoul de Charette. Fine-tuning clip’s last visual projector: A few-shot cornucopia.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05270,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Enhancing remote sensing vision-language models for zero-shot scene classification

Karim El Khoury, Maxime Zanella, Benoît Gérin, Tiffanie Godelaine, Benoît Macq, Saïd Mahmoudi, Christophe De Vleeschouwer, and Ismail Ben Ayed. Enhancing remote sensing vision-language models for zero-shot scene classification. In ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 1–5. IEEE,

work page 2025

[2] [7]

Learning deep representations by mutual information estimation and maximization

R Devon Hjelm, Alex Fedorov, Samuel Lavoie-Marchildon, Karan Grewal, Phil Bachman, Adam Trischler, and Yoshua Bengio. Learning deep representations by mutual information estimation and maximization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06670,

arXiv

[3] [9]

Prototype rectification for few-shot learning

Jinlu Liu, Liang Song, and Yongqiang Qin. Prototype rectification for few-shot learning. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 16, pp. 741–756. Springer,

work page 2020

[4] [11]

Fine-grained visual classification of aircraft.arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.5151,

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

arXiv

[5] [13]

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,

arXiv

[6] [15]

Dylora: Parameter efficient tuning of pre-trained models using dynamic search-free low-rank adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07558,

Mojtaba Valipour, Mehdi Rezagholizadeh, Ivan Kobyzev, and Ali Ghodsi. Dylora: Parameter efficient tuning of pre-trained models using dynamic search-free low-rank adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07558,

arXiv

[7] [17]

Adalora: Adaptive budget allocation for parameter-efficient fine-tuning

Qingru Zhang, Minshuo Chen, Alexander Bukharin, Nikos Karampatziakis, Pengcheng He, Yu Cheng, Weizhu Chen, and Tuo Zhao. Adalora: Adaptive budget allocation for parameter-efficient fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10512,

arXiv

[8] [18]

Bolded values indicate highest accuracy

15 A Ablations on Model Architecture Table 6:Detailed results of state-of-the-art methods in the few-shot setting for the11 datasets with the ViT-B/32 as visual backbone: Top-1 classification accuracy averaged over 3 random seeds is reported. Bolded values indicate highest accuracy. ✓denotes transductive methods, ✗denotes non- transductive methods. ImageN...

work page 2019