Matched-Learning-Rate Analysis of Attention Drift and Transfer Retention in Fine-Tuned CLIP
Organizations: Independent Researcher
Abstract
CLIP adaptation can improve in-domain accuracy while degrading out-of-domain transfer, but comparisons between Full Fine-Tuning (Full FT) and LoRA are often confounded by different learning-rate conventions. We study how adaptation method and optimization scale jointly shape attention drift and transfer retention in CLIP using a controlled matched-learning-rate comparison of Full FT and LoRA. The completed matrix contains 80 runs on CLIP ViT-B/32 across EuroSAT and Oxford-IIIT Pets, spanning four shared learning rates (, , , ) and five seeds, and evaluates attention-drift metrics, best validation accuracy, and adapter-aware CIFAR-100 zero-shot accuracy. Learning rate strongly modulates structural change: on EuroSAT, Full FT moves from mild entropy broadening at to marked contraction at , whereas LoRA remains entropy-positive across the full matched grid. At matched learning rates, LoRA preserves substantially more zero-shot transfer than Full FT, averaging versus CIFAR-100 accuracy on EuroSAT and versus on Pets. Oxford-IIIT Pets also reveals a regime effect: low-learning-rate LoRA underfits in-domain, so method-only averages can obscure when LoRA becomes competitive. Supporting rollout, patch-to-patch, and CKA analyses are directionally consistent with the controlled matrix. Overall, matched-learning-rate evaluation materially changes the interpretation of Full FT versus LoRA, and attention drift is most useful as a descriptive diagnostic of representation preservation rather than a causal explanation of transfer behavior.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Method | Mean Entropy (%) | Mean ERF (%) | Mean Best Val Acc (%) | Mean CIFAR-100 ZS (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EuroSAT | Full FT | -0.47 | -1.97 | 98.96 | 11.28 |
| EuroSAT | LoRA r=8 | +1.18 | +1.55 | 96.59 | 45.13 |
| Oxford-IIIT Pets | Full FT | -2.32 | -5.18 | 88.94 | 8.54 |
| Oxford-IIIT Pets | LoRA r=8 | -0.33 | -1.44 | 70.76 | 58.01 |
| Model | Rollout Entropy (bits) | Rollout [email protected] | Rollout Gini | Patch-to-Patch Entropy (bits) | Mean Layerwise CKA | Entropy CV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full FT EuroSAT | 5.593 | 0.944 | 0.090 | 4.721 | 0.694 | 0.0006 |
| LoRA r=8 EuroSAT | 5.605 | 0.952 | 0.064 | 4.794 | 0.815 | 0.0005 |
| Analysis | Pearson | Pearson | Spearman | Spearman | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run-level mean CKA vs. mean Entropy | 39 | 0.585 | 0.0003 | 0.406 | 0.0106 |
| Strongest per-layer association (layer 4) | 39 | 0.892 | 0.0000 | 0.638 | 0.0000 |
| Method | Entropy (%) | ERF (%) | Gini (%) | Task Acc. (%) | Entropy Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full FT on EuroSAT | -0.14 / +3.57 | -1.73 / +6.66 | -3.54 / -8.83 | 99.30 / 99.15 | +3.72 |
| LoRA r=8 on EuroSAT | +0.58 / -0.59 | +0.37 / +4.88 | -6.48 / -4.09 | 98.96 / 98.89 | -1.18 |
| Setting | Task Acc. (%) | Entropy (%) | ERF (%) | Gini (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No regularizer | 99.30 | -0.14 | -1.73 | -3.54 |
| APR | 99.26 | +0.86 | +1.50 | -8.83 |
| APR | 99.19 | +0.56 | +1.03 | -5.36 |
| APR | 98.96 | +0.09 | +0.16 | -0.75 |
| Entropy floor | 99.11 | +0.58 | -0.09 | -6.41 |
| Entropy floor | 99.07 | +0.79 | +0.30 | -8.22 |
| Comparison | Seeds | Mean Entropy (%) | Welch | Welch | Cohen’s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full FT vs. LoRA r=8 (EuroSAT) | 3 vs 3 | -0.22 vs +0.87 | -7.157 | 0.0127 | -5.844 |
| Full FT vs. LoRA r=8 (Pets) | 3 vs 3 | -2.10 vs -0.84 | -7.969 | 0.0064 | -6.507 |
| Full FT vs. APR (EuroSAT) | 3 vs 3 | -0.22 vs +0.55 | -18.441 | 0.0020 | -15.057 |
| Full FT vs. Entropy floor (EuroSAT) | 3 vs 3 | -0.22 vs +0.70 | -14.439 | 0.0002 | -11.789 |
| Comparison | Test | Statistic | -value |
|---|---|---|---|
| LR vs. Entropy | Exact permutation Pearson | -0.893 | 0.0333 |
| LR vs. Entropy | Exact permutation Spearman | -1.000 | 0.0167 |
| APR vs. baseline | Paired per-layer t-test | 2.132 | 0.2194 |
| Entropy floor vs. baseline | Paired per-layer t-test | 2.638 | 0.1154 |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| LR | Task Acc. (%) | Entropy (%) | ERF (%) | Gini (%) | CIFAR-100 ZS (%) | Flowers102 ZS (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1e-6 | 98.85 | +1.45 | +1.94 | -16.60 | — | — |
| 5e-6 | 99.11 | +0.33 | -0.49 | -6.68 | — | — |
| 1e-5 | 99.30 | -0.14 | -1.73 | -3.54 | 12.71 | 1.37 |
| 5e-5 | 98.89 | -4.19 | -8.48 | +23.44 | 2.07 | 0.88 |
| 1e-4 | 97.85 | -10.40 | -18.02 | +56.94 | 1.86 | 0.98 |
| Model | CIFAR-100 (%) | Flowers102 (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Pretrained baseline | 60.22 | 0.20 |
| Full FT EuroSAT | 9.43 | 1.37 |
| LoRA r=4 EuroSAT | 40.51 | 1.27 |
| LoRA r=8 EuroSAT | 47.28 | 0.78 |
| LoRA r=16 EuroSAT | 39.35 | 0.98 |
VLM Adaptation
Vision-language model adaptation tailors pretrained image-text and multimodal models to new tasks and domains while retaining transferable capabilities.
See all 545 papers