Robust fine-tuning of zero-shot models
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 robustness of zero-shot models becomes worse after being tuned on extra application-specific task data.
“However, the robustness of the zero-shot becomes worse after being tuned on extra application-specific tasks data [127].”
From Harnessing the power of llms in practice: a survey on chatGPT and beyond (2024) · cites this paper as [127]
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
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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