REVIEW 1 cited by
What Makes Good Few-shot Examples for Vision-Language Models?
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
What Makes Good Few-shot Examples for Vision-Language Models?
read the original abstract
Despite the notable advancements achieved by leveraging pre-trained vision-language (VL) models through few-shot tuning for downstream tasks, our detailed empirical study highlights a significant dependence of few-shot learning outcomes on the careful selection of training examples - a facet that has been previously overlooked in research. In this study, we delve into devising more effective strategies for the meticulous selection of few-shot training examples, as opposed to relying on random sampling, to enhance the potential of existing few-shot prompt learning methodologies. To achieve this, we assess the effectiveness of various Active Learning (AL) techniques for instance selection, such as Entropy and Margin of Confidence, within the context of few-shot training. Furthermore, we introduce two innovative selection methods - Representativeness (REPRE) and Gaussian Monte Carlo (Montecarlo) - designed to proactively pinpoint informative examples for labeling in relation to pre-trained VL models. Our findings demonstrate that both REPRE and Montecarlo significantly surpass both random selection and AL-based strategies in few-shot training scenarios. The research also underscores that these instance selection methods are model-agnostic, offering a versatile enhancement to a wide array of few-shot training methodologies.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Learning to Select Visual In-Context Demonstrations
A Dueling-DQN agent selects visual in-context demonstrations and outperforms kNN retrieval on objective regression benchmarks but not on subjective preference tasks, per the paper's main table.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.