Enhance Vision-Language Alignment with Noise
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advancement of pre-trained vision-language (VL) models, enhancing the alignment between visual and linguistic modalities in downstream tasks has emerged as a critical challenge. Different from existing fine-tuning methods that add extra modules to these two modalities, we investigate whether the frozen model can be fine-tuned by customized noise. Our approach is motivated by the scientific study of beneficial noise, namely Positive-incentive Noise (Pi-noise) , which quantitatively analyzes the impact of noise. It therefore implies a new scheme to learn beneficial noise distribution that can be employed to fine-tune VL models. Focusing on few-shot classification tasks based on CLIP, we reformulate the inference process of CLIP and apply variational inference, demonstrating how to generate Pi-noise towards visual and linguistic modalities. Then, we propose Positive-incentive Noise Injector (PiNI), which can fine-tune CLIP via injecting noise into both visual and text encoders. Since the proposed method can learn the distribution of beneficial noise, we can obtain more diverse embeddings of vision and language to better align these two modalities for specific downstream tasks within limited computational resources. We evaluate different noise incorporation approaches and network architectures of PiNI. The evaluation across 11 datasets demonstrates its effectiveness.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it