Organizations: School of Computer Science and Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China · School of Computing Information Sciences, Saint Francis University, Hong Kong, China · Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Language-Assisted Image Clustering (LAIC) augments the input images with additional texts with the help of vision-language models (VLMs) to promote clustering performance. Despite recent progress, existing LAIC methods often overlook two issues: (i) textual features constructed for each image are highly similar, leading to weak inter-class discriminability; (ii) the clustering step is restricted to pre-built image-text alignments, limiting the potential for better utilization of the text modality. To address these issues, we propose a new LAIC framework with two complementary components. First, we exploit cross-modal relations to produce more discriminative self-supervision signals for clustering, as it compatible with most VLMs training mechanisms. Second, we learn category-wise continuous semantic centers via prompt learning to produce the final clustering assignments. Extensive experiments on eight benchmark datasets demonstrate that our method achieves an average improvement of 2.6% over state-of-the-art methods, and the learned semantic centers exhibit strong interpretability. Code is available in the supplementary material.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Analysis of the phenomena in the first step of existing LAICs and our method on the ImageNet-10 dataset. (i) Jointly PCA results shows text features of noun from candidate set exhibit a more compact distribution, which are closed to each other compared to image features. (ii) Due to the phenomenon in (i), the similarity of text features across different samples are overall highly similar, leading to weak inter-class discriminability. (iii) Rows of our learned image-text representation matrix performs as new representation, showing better inter-class discriminability with in-class consistency retained. (b) Classification scores of three images (from DTD dataset) with respect to different semantic centers obtained by different methods. Zero-shot CLIP relies on semantic centers using ground-truth class names, which may not always capture accurate semantics (e.g, an image of motorboat is incorrectly assigned to “Surfing”. Our learned semantic center can be even better than class names, showing stronger discriminability.
Figure 2: Accuracy of each sample and its k^ -nn ( k^=10 ) belonging to the same ground-truth class on different space. We compare the results by computing similarity on images features from CLIP and rows of C , showing our image-text representation matrix has better neighbor consistency.
Datasets
ImageNet-Dogs
ImageNet-10
STL-10
CIFAR-10
Avg.
Methods
Backbone
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
DEC ( Xie et al., 2016 )
ResNet
12.2
19.5
7.9
28.2
38.1
20.3
13.6
18.5
5.0
25.7
30.1
16.1
19.6
IIC ( Ji et al., 2019 )
ResNet
-
-
-
-
-
-
49.6
59.6
39.7
51.3
61.7
41.1
-
DCCM ( Wu et al., 2019 )
ResNet
32.1
38.3
18.2
60.8
71.0
55.5
37.6
48.2
26.2
49.6
62.3
40.8
45.1
PICA ( Huang et al., 2020 )
ResNet
33.6
32.4
17.9
78.2
85.0
73.3
59.2
69.3
50.4
56.1
64.5
46.7
55.6
BYOL ( Grill et al., 2020 )
ResNet
69.7
72.9
60.9
88.4
94.7
88.9
75.4
86.1
71.5
78.0
87.5
75.2
79.1
Table 1: Clustering performance (in percent %) across four widely used datasets. ZS-CLIP means zero-shot CLIP.
Datasets
Flowers-102
CIFAR-100
DTD
UCF-101
Avg.
Methods
Backbone
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
SCAN ( Van Gansbeke et al., 2020 )
ResNet
77.9
56.5
50.9
55.4
38.7
25.1
59.4
46.4
31.7
79.7
61.1
53.1
53.0
LFSS ( Li et al., 2025b )
ResNet
79.2
55.4
51.8
66.0
52.4
37.6
58.7
45.5
31.9
58.9
34.5
21.6
49.5
SIC ( Cai et al., 2023 )
ViT-B/32
86.9
70.2
64.2
63.5
48.3
34.7
59.6
45.9
30.5
81.0
61.9
52.4
58.3
TAC ( Li et al., 2024 )
ViT-B/32
87.7
71.8
64.3
68.1
55.4
42.4
62.1
50.1
34.4
82.8
68.9
60.6
62.4
PRO-DSC ( Meng et al., 2025 )
ViT-B/32
83.2
69.8
59.6
68.2
55.7
40.2
57.6
48.1
31.3
81.0
61.9
52.8
59.1
Table 2: Clustering performance (in percent %) across four datasets with larger cluster numbers.
Figure 3: Visualization of image-text representation matrix C .
ImageNet-10
STL-10
Most similar noun (ours)
GT class name
Most similar noun (ours)
GT class name
sports_car
Sports Car
draft_horse
Horse
airline
Airliner
tabby_cat
Cat
soccer_ball
Soccer Ball
container_ship
Ship
snow_leopard
Snow Leopard
sports_car
Car
king_penguin
King Penguin
riflebird
Bird
Table 3: Comparisons between most similar nouns for semantic centers and corresponding ground-truth (noted as GT) class names.
Lsup
Lcon
Lent
ImageNet-Dogs
DTD
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
✓
82.4
81.7
75.2
60.5
51.8
34.1
✓
8.1
14.3
3.6
10.2
12.4
8.6
✓
9.1
14.6
5.7
13.5
16.2
9.7
✓
✓
86.0
87.6
81.7
62.6
51.9
34.3
✓
✓
85.9
87.4
82.1
63.3
53.2
35.5
Table 4: Ablation results with different loss combinations.
Figure 4: K-means performances comparisons on our method (Ours (no-train)) and two different baseline methods (CLIP K-means and TAC (no-train))across four datasets.
Figure 5: Accuracy gains achieved through neighborhood consistency filtering on seven datasets. Our strategy effectively mitigates clustering noise and ensures reliable supervision.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
#Samples
#Classes
ImageNet-Dogs ( Chang et al., 2017 )
19,500
15
ImageNet-10 ( Chang et al., 2017 )
13,000
10
STL-10 ( Coates et al., 2011 )
13,000
10
CIFAR-10 ( Krizhevsky, 2009 )
60,000
10
Flowers-102 ( Nilsback and Zisserman, 2008 )
8189
102
CIFAR-100 ( Krizhevsky, 2009 )
60,000
100
Appendix
Table 5: A summary of benchmark datasets used for evaluation.
Datasets
ImageNet-Dogs
ImageNet-10
STL-10
CIFAR-10
Methods
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
SIC ( Cai et al., 2023 )
69.0 ± 1.6
69.7 ± 1.1
55.8 ± 1.5
96.9 ± 0.2
98.3 ± 0.1
96.2 ± 0.2
95.3 ± 0.1
98.1 ± 0.1
95.9 ± 0.1
84.7 ± 0.1
92.6 ± 0.1
84.4 ± 0.1
MCA ( Qiu et al., 2024 )
73.3 ± 1.5
74.9 ± 2.5
61.6 ± 2.5
-
-
-
95.5 ± 0.1
98.1 ± 0.1
96.0 ± 0.1
84.9 ± 0.2
92.7 ± 0.2
84.6 ± 0.2
TAC ( Li et al., 2024 )
80.9 ± 1.0
83.3 ± 1.4
72.0 ± 1.0
98.2 ± 0.1
99.2 ± 0.1
98.3 ± 0.1
95.6 ± 0.2
98.3 ± 0.1
96.1 ± 0.1
83.4 ± 0.2
92.1 ± 0.2
83.4 ± 0.3
LFSS ( Li et al., 2025b )
61.9 ± 1.9
69.3 ± 1.7
53.1 ± 1.6
85.2 ± 0.6
93.8 ± 0.5
85.4 ± 0.8
77.3 ± 1.1
86.1 ± 0.9
74.0 ± 0.8
84.4 ± 0.6
92.2 ± 0.4
84.6 ± 0.5
PRO-DSC ( Meng et al., 2025 )
-
-
-
98.0 ± 0.3
99.0 ± 0.2
97.8 ± 0.2
95.4 ± 0.2
98.1 ± 0.4
95.9 ± 0.2
79.6 ± 0.4
87.1 ± 0.3
80.2 ± 0.4
Appendix
Table 6: Average clustering performance (in percent %) across four widely used benchmarks datasets.
Datasets
Flowers-102
CIFAR-100
DTD
UCF-101
Methods
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
SIC ( Cai et al., 2023 )
86.9 ± 0.9
70.2 ± 0.8
64.2 ± 0.6
63.5 ± 0.8
48.3 ± 0.7
34.7 ± 0.9
59.9 ± 0.8
45.5 ± 0.8
30.8 ± 0.9
81.7 ± 0.8
62.1 ± 1.1
52.5 ± 0.9
TAC ( Li et al., 2024 )
87.7 ± 0.8
70.8 ± 0.9
63.9 ± 0.5
68.1 ± 0.2
55.4 ± 0.7
42.4 ± 0.6
61.8 ± 0.5
50.9 ± 0.6
34.8 ± 0.7
82.5 ± 0.4
69.1 ± 0.8
60.2 ± 0.7
LFSS ( Li et al., 2025b )
79.2 ± 1.1
55.4 ± 1.2
51.8 ± 0.9
66.0 ± 0.6
52.4 ± 0.8
37.6 ± 0.8
58.7 ± 1.1
45.5 ± 1.2
31.9 ± 0.9
58.9 ± 0.9
34.5 ± 1.2
21.6 ± 1.1
PRO-DSC ( Meng et al., 2025 )
83.2 ± 1.0
69.8 ± 0.8
59.6 ± 0.7
68.2 ± 0.5
55.7 ± 0.6
40.2 ± 0.3
57.6 ± 0.7
48.1 ± 0.9
31.3 ± 0.8
81.0 ± 0.8
61.9 ± 0.9
52.8 ± 0.7
Ours
89.6 ± 0.8
78.6 ± 0.7
72.9 ± 0.4
68.8 ± 0.2
58.1 ± 0.4
43.4 ± 0.3
63.8 ± 0.6
53.7 ± 0.6
36.2 ± 0.5
84.4 ± 0.5
70.2 ± 0.7
61.9 ± 0.9
Appendix
Table 7: Average clustering performance (in percent %) across four benchmarks datasets with larger cluster numbers.
Figure 6: Clustering performances with different θ on CIFAR-10 and DTD.
Figure 7: Clustering performances with different γ on CIFAR-10 and DTD.
Figure 8: Clustering performances and percent of selected samples to total samples with different k^ on CIFAR-10 and DTD.
CIFAR-10
DTD-47
UCF-101
Methods
Backbone
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
NMI
ACC
ARI
TAC (no-train) ( Li et al., 2024 )
BLIP ViT-B/16
79.9
88.9
77.5
62.3
52.1
35.9
76.1
60.9
51.4
Ours (no-train)
BLIP ViT-B/16
83.6
92.1
83.5
65.1
57.2
41.7
78.9
62.9
53.6
Appendix
Table 8: Comparisons with various methods on clustering performance (in percent %) across three benchmarks datasets.
Vision-language pre-training has reshaped image clustering, giving rise to language-assisted image clustering (LaIC), which leverages textual semantics to complement visual representations. Despite the rapid proliferation of LaIC methods, it remains unclear how much LaIC has actually advanced image clustering, as existing studies generally suffer from major limitations, including inconsistent experimental settings, inadequate dataset selection, and limited evaluation dimensions. To address this gap, we introduce VLM4Cluster, a comprehensive benchmark for image clustering in the era of pre-trained vision-language models (VLMs). VLM4Cluster implements 17 representative methods spanning classical, deep, and language-assisted image clustering, and evaluates them on 20 datasets covering classical, challenging, fine-grained, large-scale, and out-of-distribution settings. Beyond effectiveness, VLM4Cluster systematically investigates image clustering along three complementary dimensions: robustness to adversarial perturbations, generalization under distribution shifts, and computational efficiency. Our study shows that LaIC substantially advances the clustering performance frontier on many semantically demanding benchmarks, generally exhibits stronger generalization under distribution shifts, and achieves a more favorable effectiveness-efficiency trade-off. However, its gains become less consistent on large-scale and fine-grained datasets, while language assistance does not systematically reduce sensitivity to adversarial perturbations. VLM4Cluster is released at https://github.com/YuanweiHuu/VLM4Cluster.
Yuanwei Hu, Bo Peng, Yuheng Jia +3
University College London · The University of Queensland · Southeast University +2
Image clustering aims to group images in an unsupervised fashion. Traditional methods focus on knowledge from visual space, making it difficult to distinguish between visually similar but semantically different classes. Recent advances in vision-language models enable the use of textual knowledge to enhance image clustering. However, most existing methods rely on coarse class labels or simple nouns, overlooking the rich conceptual and attribute-level semantics embedded in textual space. In this paper, we propose a knowledge-enhanced clustering (KEC) method that constructs a hierarchical concept-attribute structured knowledge with the help of large language models (LLMs) to guide clustering. Specifically, we first condense redundant textual labels into abstract concepts and then automatically extract discriminative attributes for each single concept and similar concept pairs, via structured prompts to LLMs. This knowledge is instantiated for each input image to achieve the knowledge-enhanced features. The knowledge-enhanced features with original visual features are adapted to various downstream clustering algorithms. We evaluate KEC on 20 diverse datasets, showing consistent improvements across existing methods using additional textual knowledge. KEC without training outperforms zero-shot CLIP on 14 out of 20 datasets. Furthermore, the naive use of textual knowledge may harm clustering performance, while KEC provides both accuracy and robustness.
Leveraging textual information for image clustering has emerged as a promising direction, largely owing to the powerful representations learned by Vision-Language Models (VLMs). Existing approaches typically retrieve a textual counterpart for each image and then refine multimodal representations by directly enforcing cross-modal agreement, e.g., maximizing image-text similarity inherited from pretrained VLMs. However, such a strategy aligns heterogeneous representations across modalities without explicitly modeling the intrinsic structure within each modality and thus might yield unreliable alignment or distort modality-specific structures that are crucial for clustering. In this paper, we propose a simple but principled approach, termed deep modality-shared self-expressive model (DeepMORSE), which discovers cross-modal structures via a modality-shared self-expressive model and simultaneously learns structured representations that conform to a union of modality-specific subspaces. Moreover, we theoretically justify that the modality-shared self-expressive coefficients suppress inter-class noise towards a subspace-preserving solution, and show that mini-batch optimization procedure introduces an implicit regularization onto the self-expressive model. We evaluate our DeepMORSE on six widely used image clustering benchmarks and observe performance improvements exceeding 3% on the UCF-101, DTD-47, and ImageNet-Dogs datasets. In addition, we demonstrate the strong transferability of the learned representations by achieving state-of-the-art performance on downstream tasks such as image retrieval and zero-shot classification---without requiring any task-specific losses or post-processing. The code is available at: https://github.com/mengxianghan123/DeepMORSE.
Xianghan Meng, Wei He, Zhiyuan Huang +1
School of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing 100876, P.R. China