Cited by 428Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsMachine Learning and Data Classification

Robust fine-tuning of zero-shot models

Open access
Wortsman, Mitchell, Ilharco, Gabriel, Kim, Jong Wook, Li, Mike, Kornblith, Simon, Roelofs, Rebecca, Lopes, Raphael Gontijo, Hajishirzi, Hannaneh +3 more·2022·2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

Large pre-trained models such as CLIP or ALIGN offer consistent accuracy across a range of data distributions when performing zero-shot inference (i.e., without fine-tuning on a specific dataset). Although existing fine-tuning methods substantially improve accuracy on a given target distribution, they often reduce robustness to distribution shifts. We address this tension by introducing a simple and effective method for improving robustness while fine-tuning: ensembling the weights of the zero-shot and fine-tuned models (WiSE-FT). Compared to standard fine-tuning, WiSE-FT provides large accuracy improvements under distribution shift, while preserving high accuracy on the target distribution. On ImageNet and five derived distribution shifts, WiSE-FT improves accuracy under distribution shift by 4 to 6 percentage points (pp) over prior work while increasing ImageNet accuracy by 1.6 pp. WiSE-FT achieves similarly large robustness gains (2 to 23 pp) on a diverse set of six further distribution shifts, and accuracy gains of 0.8 to 3.3 pp compared to standard fine-tuning on commonly used transfer learning datasets. These improvements come at no additional computational cost during fine-tuning or inference.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.00780

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 138 · Cited by 428

Authors
Wortsman, M., Ilharco, G., Kim, J. W., Li, M., Kornblith, S., Roelofs, R., Lopes, R. G., Hajishirzi, H., Farhadi, A., Namkoong, H., & Schmidt, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • OpenAI (United States) (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
Venue
2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2022-06
Pages
7949-7961
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3198675127
Cited by
428
References
138
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 140 · 2024: 134 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 2
FWCI
51.57
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
NSF (1652052)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
zero-shot learning, fine-tuning, distribution shift, robustness, CLIP, transfer learning, image classification, ImageNet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review