mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

What Does CLIP Learn for Regional Geolocalization? Probing Visual Cues and Scene Configuration After Adaptation

arXiv 2608.21761 ↗First posted 22 Aug 2026cs.AI cs.CE cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large collections of street-view imagery provide rich visual information about urban environments, but extracting fine-grained geographic information from such data remains challenging. In particular, fine-grained regional geolocalization is challenging because nearby areas often share coarse geographic cues. We study regional geolocalization within a metropolitan area and ask whether pretrained CLIP features are sufficient for regional discrimination, and what visual information supports performance after adaptation. Using 9,085 street-view images from eight Greater Los Angeles regions, we compare zero-shot CLIP, frozen-encoder readouts, partial encoder updating, Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA), and full fine-tuning. Frozen readouts remain near the 39.03% zero-shot accuracy, whereas encoder adaptation achieves 75.94-82.10%. Full fine-tuning also reduces the mean distance to the predicted region center from 12.30 km to 3.86 km. We probe these gains through semantic cue removal, appearance reduction using edge maps and blur, and scene-configuration disruption using patch scrambling. Adapted models achieve higher edge and blur accuracy and switch 42.92-45.56% of predictions after scrambling, compared with 10.79-14.60% for frozen methods. However, adaptation does not improve the fraction of performance retained after appearance reduction, while vegetation and sky remain influential. A Caltech101 control further shows that scrambling sensitivity is not unique to geolocalization. Overall, encoder adaptation substantially improves nearby-region discrimination and is associated with greater sensitivity to intact scene configuration, without evidence that coarse structure alone becomes sufficient for prediction. These conclusions concern viewpoint variation near known locations rather than geographically disjoint generalization.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Aug 2026.

Builds on

18 of 29 references.

References · 18

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
  3. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  4. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
  5. 2021SegFormer: Simple and Efficient Design for Semantic Segmentation with Transformerscited by 2,923
  6. 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,857
  7. 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
  8. 2022When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it?cited by 603
  9. 2015An End-to-End Trainable Neural Network for Image-based Sequence Recognition and Its Application to Scene Text Recognitioncited by 519
  10. 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
  11. 2019Character Region Awareness for Text Detectioncited by 273
  12. 2023GeoCLIP: Clip-Inspired Alignment between Locations and Images for Effective Worldwide Geo-localizationcited by 185
6 more
  1. 2016PlaNet - Photo Geolocation with Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 114
  2. 2017Revisiting IM2GPS in the Deep Learning Eracited by 79
  3. 2023PIGEON: Predicting Image Geolocationscited by 55
  4. 2023Learning Generalized Zero-Shot Learners for Open-Domain Image Geolocalizationcited by 41
  5. 2024OpenStreetView-5M: The Many Roads to Global Visual Geolocationcited by 38
  6. 2024AddressCLIP: Empowering Vision-Language Models for City-wide Image Address Localizationcited by 21

Built on by

Not cited yet.