Papers › Calibrating Multi-modal Representations: A Pursuit of Group Robustness without Annotations

Calibrating Multi-modal Representations: A Pursuit of Group Robustness without Annotations

12 Mar 2024CVPR 2024 1arXiv:2403.07241archive 2025-07-28

Chenyu You, Yifei Min, Weicheng Dai, Jasjeet S. Sekhon, Lawrence Staib, James S. Duncan

Fine-tuning pre-trained vision-language models, like CLIP, has yielded success on diverse downstream tasks. However, several pain points persist for this paradigm: (i) directly tuning entire pre-trained models becomes both time-intensive and computationally costly. Additionally, these tuned models tend to become highly specialized, limiting their practicality for real-world deployment; (ii) recent studies indicate that pre-trained vision-language classifiers may overly depend on spurious features -- patterns that correlate with the target in training data, but are not related to the true labeling function; and (iii) existing studies on mitigating the reliance on spurious features, largely based on the assumption that we can identify such features, does not provide definitive assurance for real-world applications. As a piloting study, this work focuses on exploring mitigating the reliance on spurious features for CLIP without using any group annotation. To this end, we systematically study the existence of spurious correlation on CLIP and CLIP+ERM. We first, following recent work on Deep Feature Reweighting (DFR), verify that last-layer retraining can greatly improve group robustness on pretrained CLIP. In view of them, we advocate a lightweight representation calibration method for fine-tuning CLIP, by first generating a calibration set using the pretrained CLIP, and then calibrating representations of samples within this set through contrastive learning, all without the need for group labels. Extensive experiments and in-depth visualizations on several benchmarks validate the effectiveness of our proposals, largely reducing reliance and significantly boosting the model generalization.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. 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

3 samples harvested; 1 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 3 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 charlesyou999648/cfr. “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.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

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