Papers › Concept-Constrained Prompt Learning for Few-Shot CLIP Adaptation
Concept-Constrained Prompt Learning for Few-Shot CLIP Adaptation
Na Sang, Ding Ma, Rui Sang, Yuxuan Liu
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Few-shot prompt learning is an effective strategy for adapting CLIP to downstream tasks, but class-only prompt optimization can overfit base-class supervision and weaken transfer to unseen classes. We propose Concept-Constrained Prompt Learning (CCPL), a lightweight regularization framework that anchors learnable class prompts to frozen concept-level text prototypes without updating CLIP encoders. CCPL learns a set of shared context tokens, instantiates class prompts by appending class names, and constructs frozen concept prototypes from a class-level concept bank. During training, a text-space cosine consistency objective aligns learnable class-prompt embeddings with frozen concept prototypes; concept dropout provides additional regularization against over-reliance on fixed concept lists. At inference, CCPL optionally fuses class-prompt logits with concept-prototype logits using a controllable ensemble weight alpha. Our default configuration uses text-space concept regularization lambda = 0.5, concept dropout p = 0.3 and weak concept-guided fusion (alpha = 0.1), with no KL-based prediction consistency term. Experiments under identical automatically-generated fallback splits show that CCPL improves the base-to-new harmonic mean on DTD (+0.6) and EuroSAT (+2.9) compared with CoOp, while remaining near-neutral on OxfordPets (-0.1). Ablations indicate that text-space concept regularization is consistently beneficial, while the best concept-guided inference strength is dataset- and protocol-sensitive. These results suggest concept constraints are most effective when concept prototypes align naturally with dataset semantics, and identify fine-grained categories as a current boundary condition. The code is released at: https://github.com/richael-sang/concept-constrained-prompt-learning.
In Syntology For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2606.22567")
Code
Syntology Ran 3 of 5 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 5 samples from 1 repository, 3 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
5 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from richael-sang/concept-constrained-prompt-learning. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
ba26afd892405335 · report
d919ae32e5e4e616 · report
9542161e9640b858 · report
48ac2bd4dcbfb717 · report
fbf8c0143d9c48e3 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2606.22567, was issued in June 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections