mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Your Model Already Knows Don't Teach It, Learn to Ask It: Soft Prompting for Few-Shot Adaptation of Vision-Language Models

arXiv 2609.11310 ↗First posted 10 Sep 2026cs.CV cs.AI cs.LGcited by 1

On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → Prompt learning and adaptation of CLIP

Abstract (arXiv)

We address few-shot object detection with vision-language models (VLMs) in out-of-domain settings such as aerial, industrial, and medical imagery, using only ten annotated images for supervision. Existing adaptation methods are discrete prompt optimization and LoRA fine-tuning. We revisit a third option: soft prompting, where a small number of continuous prompt tokens are optimized while the pretrained backbone remains frozen. We identify two key design choices. First, placing prompt tokens at the cross-modal boundary between visual and text tokens outperforms other placements (10.0 vs. 8.4 mAP). Second, initializing prompts from the empty space token outperforms semantic and random initialization. With these choices, one to three learned tokens (7,168 parameters on average) match the best LoRA configuration on Roboflow20-VL (14.2 mAP, 10-shot) while training over 20,000x fewer parameters. Soft prompting remains harder to optimize, exhibiting higher variance across random seeds. Unlike LoRA, however, it causes no forgetting: the LoRA rank matching our accuracy reduces NaturalBench VQA accuracy by 35% relative, rising to 56% at the largest rank, whereas soft prompting leaves pretrained performance unchanged. The learned tokens behave like prompts rather than weights. They transfer to a newer model without retraining (+0.8 mAP on Qwen3.5-9B) and can be verbalized into readable prompts competitive with prompt-search methods (matching DetPO and outperforming GEPA). The approach also extends beyond detection. On RoboCasa manipulation tasks, the frozen π0.5 vision-language-action policy benefits from soft prompting, matching the LoRA baseline on two of three tasks when tokens are placed at the gradient bottleneck. These results suggest modern VLMs already encode much of what is needed for specialized domains; the challenge is learning how to ask.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt learning and adaptation of CLIP, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models. Builds on 30 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Sep 2026.

Builds on

30 of 37 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024PromptKD: Unsupervised Prompt Distillation for Vision-Language Models5 Mar
  2. 2022Conditional Prompt Learning for Vision-Language Models10 Mar
  3. 2021Learning to Prompt for Vision-Language Models2 Sep

Other references · 27

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  3. 2023Visual Instruction Tuningcited by 7,869
  4. 2019Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLPcited by 4,236
  5. 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,915
  6. 2021The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuningcited by 3,795
  7. 2023Grounding DINO: Marrying DINO with Grounded Pre-Training for Open-Set Object Detectioncited by 3,332
  8. 2023InstructBLIP: Towards General-purpose Vision-Language Models with Instruction Tuningcited by 2,876
  9. 2024π0: A Vision-Language-Action Flow Model for General Robot Controlcited by 2,407
  10. 2023Qwen-VL: A Versatile Vision-Language Model for Understanding, Localization, Text Reading, and Beyondcited by 2,224
  11. 2022Visual Prompt Tuningcited by 1,681
  12. 2024LlamaFactory: Unified Efficient Fine-Tuning of 100+ Language Modelscited by 1,464
15 more
  1. 2019LVIS: A Dataset for Large Vocabulary Instance Segmentationcited by 1,217
  2. 2016Modeling Context in Referring Expressionscited by 1,063
  3. 2015Generation and Comprehension of Unambiguous Object Descriptionscited by 904
  4. 2016Training Deep Nets with Sublinear Memory Costcited by 848
  5. 2021P-Tuning v2: Prompt Tuning Can Be Comparable to Fine-tuning Universally Across Scales and Taskscited by 689
  6. 2022MaPLe: Multi-modal Prompt Learningcited by 687
  7. 2025GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learningcited by 542
  8. 2024RoboCasa: Large-Scale Simulation of Everyday Tasks for Generalist Robotscited by 407
  9. 2023MimicGen: A Data Generation System for Scalable Robot Learning using Human Demonstrationscited by 327
  10. 2024TextGrad: Automatic "Differentiation" via Textcited by 273
  11. 2021SPoT: Better Frozen Model Adaptation through Soft Prompt Transfercited by 235
  12. 2024NaturalBench: Evaluating Vision-Language Models on Natural Adversarial Samplescited by 97
  13. 2025Roboflow100-VL: A Multi-Domain Object Detection Benchmark for Vision-Language Modelscited by 20
  14. 2025Reverse Engineering Human Preferences with Reinforcement Learningcited by 3
  15. 2026DetPO: In-Context Learning with Multi-Modal LLMs for Few-Shot Object Detectioncited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Low-Rank Few-Shot Adaptation of Vision-Language Models
  2. 2023Black Box Few-Shot Adaptation for Vision-Language models
  3. 2025Rethinking Few-Shot Adaptation of Vision-Language Models in Two Stages
  4. 2025Vocabulary-free few-shot learning for Vision-Language Models
  5. 2024Revisiting Prompt Pretraining of Vision-Language Models
  6. 2022Prompting through Prototype: A Prototype-based Prompt Learning on Pretrained Vision-Language Models
  7. 2026MMLoP: Multi-Modal Low-Rank Prompting for Efficient Vision-Language Adaptation
  8. 2024Nemesis: Normalizing the Soft-prompt Vectors of Vision-Language Models