LP++: A Surprisingly Strong Linear Probe for Few-Shot CLIP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent, strongly emergent literature on few-shot CLIP adaptation, Linear Probe (LP) has been often reported as a weak baseline. This has motivated intensive research building convoluted prompt learning or feature adaptation strategies. In this work, we propose and exam-ine from convex-optimization perspectives a generalization of the standard LP baseline, in which the linear classifier weights are learnable functions of the text embedding, with class-wise multipliers blending image and text knowledge. As our objective function depends on two types of variables, i.e., the class visual prototypes and the learnable blending parameters, we propose a computationally efficient block coordinate Majorize-Minimize (MM) descent algorithm. In our full-batch MM optimizer, which we coin LP++, step sizes are implicit, unlike standard gradient descent practices where learning rates are intensively searched over validation sets. By examining the mathematical properties of our loss (e.g., Lipschitz gradient continuity), we build ma-jorizing functions yielding data-driven learning rates and derive approximations of the loss's minima, which provide data-informed initialization of the variables. Our image-language objective function, along with these non-trivial optimization insights and ingredients, yields, surprisingly, highly competitive few-shot CLIP performances. Furthermore, LP++ operates in black-box, relaxes intensive validation searches for the optimization hyper-parameters, and runs orders-of-magnitudes faster than state-of-the-art few-shot CLIP adaptation methods. Our code is available at: https://github.com/FereshteShakeri/FewShot-CLIP-Strong-Baseline.git.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".