mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Investigating the Limitation of CLIP Models: The Worst-Performing Categories

arXiv 2310.03324 ↗First posted 5 Oct 2023cs.CV cs.LGcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) provides a foundation model by integrating natural language into visual concepts, enabling zero-shot recognition on downstream tasks. It is usually expected that satisfactory overall accuracy can be achieved across numerous domains through well-designed textual prompts. However, we found that their performance in the worst categories is significantly inferior to the overall performance. For example, on ImageNet, there are a total of 10 categories with class-wise accuracy as low as 0%, even though the overall performance has achieved 64.1%. This phenomenon reveals the potential risks associated with using CLIP models, particularly in risk-sensitive applications where specific categories hold significant importance. To address this issue, we investigate the alignment between the two modalities in the CLIP model and propose the Class-wise Matching Margin (cmm) to measure the inference confusion. cmm can effectively identify the worst-performing categories and estimate the potential performance of the candidate prompts. We further query large language models to enrich descriptions of worst-performing categories and build a weighted ensemble to highlight the efficient prompts. Experimental results clearly verify the effectiveness of our proposal, where the accuracy on the worst-10 categories on ImageNet is boosted to 5.2%, without manual prompt engineering, laborious optimization, or access to labeled validation data.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2023.

Builds on

19 of 28 references.

References · 19

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  2. 2022LAION-5B: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text modelscited by 4,131
  3. 2021Scaling Up Visual and Vision-Language Representation Learning With Noisy Text Supervisioncited by 3,848
  4. 2021GLIDE: Towards Photorealistic Image Generation and Editing with Text-Guided Diffusion Modelscited by 3,595
  5. 2013Describing Textures in the Wildcited by 2,110
  6. 2013Fine-Grained Visual Classification of Aircraftcited by 1,701
  7. 2017EuroSAT: A Novel Dataset and Deep Learning Benchmark for Land Use and Land Cover Classificationcited by 1,488
  8. 2023ImageBind: One Embedding Space To Bind Them Allcited by 1,162
  9. 2017Remote Sensing Image Scene Classification: Benchmark and State of the Artcited by 791
  10. 2016Training Region-based Object Detectors with Online Hard Example Miningcited by 577
  11. 2022Visual Classification via Description from Large Language Modelscited by 331
  12. 2021Distributional Robustness Loss for Long-tail Learningcited by 84
7 more
  1. 2020Hard negative examples are hard, but usefulcited by 82
  2. 2022ProposalCLIP: Unsupervised Open-Category Object Proposal Generation via Exploiting CLIP Cuescited by 42
  3. 2023A Simple Zero-shot Prompt Weighting Technique to Improve Prompt Ensembling in Text-Image Modelscited by 39
  4. 2017Robust Optimization for Non-Convex Objectivescited by 34
  5. 2022Learning to Decompose Visual Features with Latent Textual Promptscited by 28
  6. 2017Combining Weakly and Webly Supervised Learning for Classifying Food Imagescited by 17
  7. 2023No One Left Behind: Improving the Worst Categories in Long-Tailed Learningcited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 5; 2025: 6; 2026: 1.

12 papers.