Vision-Language Models (VLMs) such as CLIP learn a shared embedding space for images and text, yet their representations remain geometrically separated, a phenomenon known as the modality gap. This gap limits tasks requiring cross-modal interchangeability, such as captioning and joint clustering. Existing post-processing approaches can partially improve cross-modal compatibility; however, we show through geometric analysis that they primarily reduce the global centroid offset while leaving the underlying distributional mismatch intact. We decompose the modality gap into a Centroid Gap and a Distribution Gap, and demonstrate that the Distribution Gap is the true predictor of cross-modal task quality (R2=0.986), whereas the commonly used Raw Gap is misleading (R2=0.691). Motivated by this observation, we propose TPC-CMA (Three-Phase Curriculum for Cross-Modal Alignment), a fine-tuning framework that explicitly reduces both components. The proposed CMA jointly mitigates centroid offsets and reshapes the distributional structure, while a three-phase curriculum with gradient-aware scheduling progressively introduces alignment during training to enable stable optimization. Experiments demonstrate that our method significantly improves cross-modal alignment. With αtarget=0.05, the modality gap is reduced by 66.6% with only 4.84% accuracy drop. Under stronger alignment (αtarget=0.5), the gap is reduced by 82.3%, clustering ARI improves from 0.318 to 0.516, and captioning CIDEr increases by 57.1% over the original model. Our code and pre-trained models will be made publicly available upon acceptance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The t-SNE visualization of multimodal features (top) and downstream performance of different methods (bottom). (a) Original CLIP: image and text embeddings form separated islands. (b) Mean-Centering Liang et al. (2022) ; Li et al. (2025) ; An et al. (2025) ; Yamashita et al. (2025) : centroids overlap but distributional mismatch persists. (c) Our alignment method (TPC-CMA, αtarget=0.5 ): true semantic interleaving. Each panel reports the Modality Gap, defined as the residual cosine distance after centroid alignment (see Section 2.2 ); lower values indicate better structural alignment. Bottom : downstream impact on two zero-shot tasks. (d) Image captioning CIDEr improves from 0.210 to 0.330. (e) Joint clustering ARI improves from 0.318 to 0.516.
Figure 2: Overview of TPC-CMA. A : CLIP backbone extracts image and text embeddings. B : CMA Loss combines Negative Reweighting (reduces Centroid Gap) and Intra-modal Geometry Matching (reduces Distribution Gap) via α . C : Three-Phase Curriculum schedules α from 0 to αtarget across Anchor, Gradient-aware Ramp-up, and Stabilize stages, with the transition speed dynamically modulated by the observed gradient dynamics between loss terms.
Figure 3: Gap decomposition under Mean-Centering. Despite a 97% Centroid Gap reduction, both Distribution Gap and ROUGE-L remain unchanged, showing that correcting the centroid offset alone does not improve cross-modal compatibility.
Method
Type
Gap
Gap ↓ %
GD
ImageNet
I2T R@1
T2I R@1
V-Measure
CIDEr
ROUGE-L
Original CLIP Radford et al. (2021)
Pretrained
0.733
-
0.685
62.62
53.42
35.36
0.769
0.210
0.250
Mean-Centering Liang et al. (2022)
Post-proc
0.685
6.5
0.685
60.23
43.74
34.44
0.766
0.227
0.250
AlignCLIP Eslami and de Melo (2025) †
From-scratch
0.353
51.8
0.550
32.79
33.64
22.28
0.749
0.112
0.244
M 2 -Mix Oh et al. (2023)
Fine-tune
0.710
3.1
0.637
54.24
42.98
31.00
0.762
0.197
0.239
CLIP-Refine Yamaguchi et al. (2025)
Fine-tune
0.747
− 1.9
0.647
62.99
53.90
36.31
0.765
0.236
0.265
CS-Aligner Yin et al. (2025)
Fine-tune
0.734
− 0.1
0.617
61.37
49.15
32.89
0.770
0.174
0.249
Table 1: Main comparison across gap reduction, discriminative, generative, and structural tasks.
Figure 4: Gap vs. Accuracy Pareto Frontier. TPC-CMA forms a smooth efficient frontier that envelopes all selected baselines. AlignCLIP and M 2 -Mix fall significantly below the frontier, while CLIP-Refine fails to reduce the gap.
Method
GD
CIDEr
BLEU-4
ROUGE-L
Original CLIP
0.685
0.210
0.029
0.250
Mean-Centering
0.685
0.227
0.040
0.250
AlignCLIP
0.550
0.112
0.015
0.244
CLIP-Refine
0.647
0.236
0.045
0.265
M 2 -Mix
0.637
0.197
0.032
0.239
CS-Aligner
0.617
0.174
0.036
0.249
Table 2: DeCap zero-shot captioning on COCO. Image embeddings are directly used as the decoder prefix without any learned projection layer.
Method
GD
V-Measure
ARI
Original CLIP
0.685
0.769
0.318
Mean-Centering
0.685
0.766
0.306
AlignCLIP
0.550
0.749
0.304
M 2 -Mix
0.637
0.762
0.298
CLIP-Refine
0.647
0.765
0.310
CS-Aligner
0.617
0.770
0.315
Table 3: Joint image-text clustering following Grassucci et al. Grassucci et al. (2026) (ImageNet val, 200 classes × 50 imgs, KMeans k=200 ).
Figure 5: Distribution Gap vs. Raw Gap as predictors of DeCap CIDEr score. (a) Distribution Gap is a near-perfect predictor ( R2=0.986 ); (b) Raw Gap yields a substantially weaker fit ( R2=0.691 ).
Method
I2T R@1
I2T R@5
T2I R@1
T2I R@5
Original CLIP
53.42
77.18
35.36
61.52
Mean-Centering
43.74
70.70
34.44
60.03
TPC-CMA αtarget=0.01
50.96
76.10
35.96
62.16
TPC-CMA αtarget=0.05
48.56
74.86
35.68
61.87
Table 4: COCO retrieval (5K test split).
Method
ImageNet
CIFAR-100
Food-101
Caltech
Flowers
Orig. CLIP
62.62
69.80
79.50
85.90
67.20
Mean-Centering
60.23
67.60
78.50
83.90
62.00
TPC-CMA αtarget=0.01
60.86
67.80
77.00
87.10
64.00
TPC-CMA αtarget=0.05
57.78
66.20
75.30
87.00
62.30
Table 5: Multi-dataset zero-shot classification.
Variant
NR
Intra
TPC
α
Modal. Gap ↓
ImageNet Top-1
ARI
w/o NR
✓
✓
0.5
0.282
54.66
0.453
w/o Intra
✓
✓
0.5
0.239
53.13
0.348
CMA-Only
✓
✓
0.5
0.133
49.75
0.362
TPC-CMA
✓
✓
✓
0.5
0.130
54.86
0.516
w/o NR
✓
✓
0.05
0.364
55.47
0.372
w/o Intra
✓
✓
0.05
0.379
55.19
0.342
Table 6: Component ablation. w/o Intra applies Negative Reweighting only. CMA-Only applies both CMA mechanisms but with constant α from epoch 1 (no three-phase curriculum).
Figure 6: Effective rank dynamics. (a) Single-modal effective rank vs. αtarget ; rank follows an inverted-U, peaking near αtarget=0.1 before declining. Baselines are shown as horizontal dotted lines. (b) Modality Fusion Index vs. ARI.
The modality gap is intrinsic to multimodal alignment, where embeddings from different modalities remain partially separated in a shared representation space. In continual learning, CLIP-based vision-language models (VLMs) not only suffer catastrophic forgetting but also experience modality gap drift that disrupts the shared embedding geometry. Such drift degrades cross-modal alignment and generalization. We propose FPCD, an efficient framework combining Fast Null-space Projection (FNP) and Contrastive Distillation (CD). FNP accumulates compact Gram matrices of previous tasks' activations and projects gradients onto layer-adaptive approximate null spaces to reduce interference with learned representations. By replacing singular value decomposition with symmetric eigendecomposition, FNP accelerates projection-basis construction by a factor of 5-9. CD uses a small reference set to align the bidirectional image-to-text and text-to-image similarity distributions of the fine-tuned model with CLIP, thereby preserving pretrained cross-modal relations. On the 11-task MTIL benchmark, FPCD achieves 87.6% Last, 76.4% Average, and 65.2% Transfer. It also maintains more stable modality gaps and stronger zero-shot retrieval performance on COCO Captions and Flickr30k than competing methods. These results highlight the importance of controlling modality gap drift during continual adaptation of VLMs.
Tiantian Peng, Yuyang Liu, Shuo Yang +2
Peking University, Shenzhen Graduate School · Peng Cheng Laboratory
Contrastive vision-language models learn shared embedding spaces by aligning matched image-text pairs, yet their representations remain separated by a modality gap. Prior work reports divergent effects of modifying this gap: reducing it can improve zero-shot classification and cross-modal alignment, whereas removing gap-related structure can degrade image-text retrieval. In this paper, we provide a unified geometric explanation for these task-dependent effects. Across CLIP and SigLIP encoders, we find that a single dominant direction captures 94.4-99.9% of the squared norm of the image-text mean separation, revealing that the mean-separation component is approximately rank-one. A decomposition of the similarity score then identifies three task-specific roles. In zero-shot classification, query-side fixed gap-offset subtraction is exactly equivalent to an additive class bias. In standard cross-modal retrieval, projecting out the gap direction and renormalising residuals discards candidate-specific norm information, inducing a multiplicative ranking distortion; a geometry-derived exponent tracks the grid-search optimum (Spearman rho = 0.93) and restores performance in some settings, although the gains transfer unevenly. In mixed-modal retrieval, the gap direction sorts candidates by modality; its removal can improve cross-modal ranking, unlike random or non-gap controls. Residual semantic structure after removal defines the limits of the rank-one account. Together, these results explain why gap modification can improve, degrade, or restore performance across downstream settings. By clarifying when and why gap modification changes model behavior, this account provides a principled basis for selecting gap interventions in similarity-based vision-language systems across evaluated downstream tasks.
Vision-language models such as CLIP embed images and text in a shared space, where modality-specific distributions often remain separated. Existing accounts connect this modality gap to initialization, contrastive dynamics, and information imbalance, while its distributional and pairwise contributions to retrieval remain unresolved. We introduce UOT-Gap, a training-free variational diagnostic that models frozen image and text embeddings with unbalanced entropic optimal transport (UOT). The UOT optimum separates transport, coupling complexity, and marginal mass variation; a complementary pair-aware residual compares observed image-caption pairs with the UOT soft matching. On Flickr8K and COCO-1K with frozen CLIP, OpenCLIP, and SigLIP encoders, caption degradation reduces Flickr8K Recall@1 from 0.559 to 0.003. Across six dataset-model conditions, the pair-aware residual tracks retrieval degradation with mean absolute Spearman 0.973, compared with 0.392 for the mean gap. The association remains stable across five random COCO-1K subsets at 0.954±0.026, with a minimum of 0.943. UOT barycentric updates reduce the transport objective while degrading retrieval, distinguishing geometric objective descent from task improvement. These results establish UOT-Gap as a diagnostic for caption quality, modality alignment, and retrieval robustness.