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 (10−6, 5×10−6, 10−5, 5×10−5) 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 10−6 to marked contraction at 5×10−5, 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 45.13% versus 11.28% CIFAR-100 accuracy on EuroSAT and 58.01% versus 8.54% 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
Figure 1: Controlled matched-learning-rate comparison across EuroSAT and Oxford-IIIT Pets. Each panel reports the mean and standard deviation across five seeds for best validation accuracy, CLS-to-patch entropy drift, and adapter-aware CIFAR-100 zero-shot accuracy. Learning rate changes both the direction and magnitude of attention drift, and LoRA preserves substantially more transfer than Full FT at matched optimization scales.
Dataset
Method
Mean Δ Entropy (%)
Mean Δ 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
Table 1: Aggregate means across the completed matched-learning-rate grid. Each row summarizes 20 runs (four learning rates, five seeds).
Figure 2: Mean per-layer entropy drift across the matched learning-rate grid. Rows correspond to learning rates and columns correspond to transformer layers. The strongest contraction is concentrated in the later layers, especially under high-learning-rate Full FT on Oxford-IIIT Pets, whereas LoRA remains structurally milder across the grid.
Table 2: Auxiliary validation analyses beyond CLS-to-patch entropy. Rollout and patch-to-patch metrics indicate broader attention support for LoRA than for Full FT on EuroSAT, while layerwise CKA [ 7 ] shows higher representational similarity to the pretrained encoder. The subset-sensitivity coefficient of variation (CV) is low for both methods, indicating that the reported metrics are stable across five stratified, class-balanced evaluation subsets drawn from the in-domain validation split.
Analysis
n
Pearson r
Pearson p
Spearman ρ
Spearman p
Run-level mean CKA vs. mean Δ 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
Table 3: Correlation between representational fidelity (CKA to the pretrained model [ 7 ] ) and structural change ( Δ entropy).
Method
Δ Entropy (%)
Δ ERF (%)
Δ 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
Table 4: Backbone comparison between CLIP ViT-B/32 and ViT-B/16 on EuroSAT. Metric cells show B/32 / B/16 values.
Setting
Task Acc. (%)
Δ Entropy (%)
Δ ERF (%)
Δ Gini (%)
No regularizer
99.30
-0.14
-1.73
-3.54
APR λ=0.01
99.26
+0.86
+1.50
-8.83
APR λ=0.1
99.19
+0.56
+1.03
-5.36
APR λ=1.0
98.96
+0.09
+0.16
-0.75
Entropy floor λ=0.01
99.11
+0.58
-0.09
-6.41
Entropy floor λ=0.1
99.07
+0.79
+0.30
-8.22
Table 5: Regularization study on EuroSAT full fine-tuning. Among individually tested regularizers, entropy floor with λ=0.1 is the only setting with a paired per-layer entropy difference reaching p<0.05 in the current analysis.
Comparison
Seeds
Mean Δ Entropy (%)
Welch t
Welch p
Cohen’s d
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 λ=0.1 (EuroSAT)
3 vs 3
-0.22 vs +0.55
-18.441
0.0020
-15.057
Full FT vs. Entropy floor λ=0.1 (EuroSAT)
3 vs 3
-0.22 vs +0.70
-14.439
0.0002
-11.789
Table 6: Run-level multi-seed comparisons on mean Δ entropy. Values are reported as percentage change relative to the corresponding pretrained baseline, aggregated across completed seed runs.
Comparison
Test
Statistic
p -value
LR vs. Δ Entropy
Exact permutation Pearson r
-0.893
0.0333
LR vs. Δ Entropy
Exact permutation Spearman ρ
-1.000
0.0167
APR λ=0.01 vs. baseline
Paired per-layer t-test
2.132
0.2194
Entropy floor λ=0.1 vs. baseline
Paired per-layer t-test
2.638
0.1154
Table 7: Corrected inferential statistics.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
LR
Task Acc. (%)
Δ Entropy (%)
Δ ERF (%)
Δ 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
Appendix
Table 8: Learning-rate sweep for EuroSAT full fine-tuning. Entropy decreases monotonically as the learning rate increases across the tested range. Zero-shot columns report CIFAR-100 [ 8 ] and Flowers102 [ 11 ] .
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
Appendix
Table 9: Zero-shot results using an adapter-aware image-encoding path for LoRA checkpoints. The pretrained baseline is retained from the original CLIP evaluation path, while adapted checkpoints are re-evaluated with their own image branch active. Flowers102 is the standard flower-classification benchmark [ 11 ] .
Vision-language model adaptation tailors pretrained image-text and multimodal models to new tasks and domains while retaining transferable capabilities.
Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China · School of Computer Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.