Papers › Understanding and Mitigating Miscalibration in Prompt Tuning for Vision-Language Models

Understanding and Mitigating Miscalibration in Prompt Tuning for Vision-Language Models

3 Oct 2024arXiv:2410.02681archive 2025-07-28

Shuoyuan Wang, Yixuan Li, Hongxin Wei

Confidence calibration is critical for the safe deployment of machine learning models in the real world. However, such issue in vision-language models like CLIP, particularly after fine-tuning, has not been fully addressed. In this work, we demonstrate that existing prompt tuning methods usually lead to a trade-off of calibration between base and new classes: the cross-entropy loss in CoOp causes overconfidence in new classes by increasing textual label divergence, whereas the regularization of KgCoOp maintains the confidence level but results in underconfidence in base classes due to the improved accuracy. Inspired by the observations, we introduce Dynamic Outlier Regularization (DOR) to ensure the confidence calibration on both base and new classes after fine-tuning. In particular, we propose to minimize the feature deviation of novel textual labels (instead of base classes) sampled from a large vocabulary. In effect, DOR prevents the increase in textual divergence for new labels while easing restrictions on base classes. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DOR can enhance the calibration performance of current fine-tuning methods on base and new classes.

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

9 samples harvested; 4 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 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 9 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 ml-stat-Sustech/Outlier-Calibration. “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.

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