Organizations: University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran · Department of Computer Engineering, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran · CHIRP, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Pre-trained vision-language models such as CLIP can recognize new categories via prompting, but they often struggle when labeled data are scarce or the test distribution shifts. Prompt learning adapts only a small set of parameters while keeping the backbone frozen, yet many existing multimodal prompt learners couple the visual and textual branches weakly and can be brittle in low-shot regimes. We propose ProCAP, a probabilistic cross-attentive prompt learning framework that improves cross-modal interaction and training stability without updating any CLIP weights: it learns both visual and textual prompt tokens and links them through stacked bidirectional multi-head cross-attention so the two branches refine each other across prompt depth. To reduce overfitting under limited supervision, we parameterize prompt tokens with Gaussian means and variances and regularize them with lightweight KL and L2 penalties, and we further add a compact symmetric InfoNCE head that aligns cross-attended image features with class-level text representations in a shared low-dimensional space. Across few-shot base-to-novel generalization on 11 datasets, cross-dataset transfer, and domain generalization on ImageNet shift benchmarks, ProCAP achieves strong aggregate base-to-novel performance and competitive transfer performance while keeping the CLIP backbone unchanged.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of prompt learning designs and their effect on base-to-novel generalization. (a) Multi-template prompting and MaPLe-style prompting. (b) ProCAP prompting and base-to-novel HM across benchmarks.
Figure 2: Overview of the proposed ProCAP framework. ProCAP builds on a frozen CLIP backbone and introduces cross-attentive multimodal prompts, probabilistic (Gaussian) prompt parameterization, and a symmetric InfoNCE head for improved few-shot and base-to-novel transfer.
Method
Venue
(a) Average
(b) ImageNet
(c) Caltech101
(d) OxfordPets
Base
Novel
HM
Base
Novel
HM
Base
Novel
HM
Base
Novel
HM
CLIP
ICML’21
69.34
74.22
71.70
72.43
68.14
70.22
96.84
94.00
95.40
91.17
97.26
94.12
CoCoOp
CVPR’22
80.47
71.69
75.83
75.98
70.43
73.10
97.96
93.81
95.84
95.20
97.69
96.43
CoOp
IJCV’22
82.69
63.22
71.66
76.47
67.88
71.92
98.00
89.81
93.73
93.67
95.29
94.47
KgCoOp
CVPR’23
80.73
73.60
77.00
75.83
69.96
72.78
97.72
94.39
96.03
94.65
97.76
96.18
MaPLe
CVPR’23
82.28
75.14
78.55
76.66
70.54
73.47
97.74
94.36
96.02
95.43
97.76
96.58
Table 1: Base-to-novel generalization (Top-1 %, HM). In the Average block, HM is computed from the average Base and Novel accuracies using Eq. ( 10 ). Dashes indicate unreported metrics; ProCAP reports three-seed means.
Method
Venue
Source
Target
Target Mean
ImageNet
ImageNetV2
ImageNet-Sketch
ImageNet-A
ImageNet-R
Avg.
CLIP
ICML’21
66.73
60.83
46.15
47.77
73.96
57.18
CoOp
IJCV’22
71.51
64.20
47.99
49.71
75.21
59.28
CoCoOp
CVPR’22
71.02
64.07
48.75
50.63
76.18
59.91
MaPLe
CVPR’23
70.72
64.07
49.15
50.90
76.98
60.28
PromptSRC
ICCV’23
71.27
64.35
49.55
50.90
77.80
60.65
Table 2: Domain generalization (Top-1 %). Train on ImageNet and evaluate directly on ImageNet distribution shifts. Dashes indicate unreported values. DCPL ∗ denotes the domain-generalization variant defined by Mei et al. (2026) : its image-specific prompt is used only as an auxiliary input, while CLIP’s original image classification token is retained.
Method
Source
Target
ImageNet
Avg.
Caltech101
Pets
Cars
Flowers
Food
Aircraft
SUN397
DTD
EuroSAT
UCF101
CoOp
71.51
63.88
93.70
89.14
64.51
68.71
85.30
18.47
64.15
41.92
46.39
66.55
CoCoOp
71.02
65.74
94.43
90.14
65.32
71.88
86.06
22.94
67.36
45.73
45.37
68.21
MaPLe
70.72
66.30
93.53
90.49
65.57
72.23
86.20
24.74
67.01
46.49
48.06
68.69
PromptSRC
71.27
65.81
93.60
90.25
65.70
70.25
86.15
23.90
67.10
46.87
45.50
68.75
TCP
71.40
66.29
93.97
91.25
64.69
71.21
86.69
23.45
67.15
44.35
51.45
68.73
Table 3: Cross-dataset transfer (Top-1 %). Train on ImageNet (16-shot) and evaluate directly on 10 target datasets.
Figure 3: Few-shot learning curves (Top-1 accuracy, %) across benchmark datasets with K∈{1,2,4,8,16} training shots per class (CLIP ViT-B/16). We compare ProCAP against standard prompt-learning baselines under the same protocol. The Average panel reports the mean accuracy over all evaluated datasets.
Variant
Cross-Attn
Gaussian
KL
L2
InfoNCE
DTD
EuroSAT
OxfordPets
StanfordCars
Avg.
MaPLe-style ( Khattak et al., 2023a )
–
–
–
–
–
67.65
80.15
96.58
73.47
79.46
w/o Cross-Attn
–
✓
✓
✓
✓
72.86
90.22
96.67
77.10
84.21
w/o Gaussian
✓
–
–
–
✓
72.35
89.92
96.60
76.80
83.92
w/o KL
✓
✓
–
✓
✓
72.88
90.12
97.05
77.55
84.40
w/o L2
✓
✓
✓
–
✓
73.05
90.55
96.44
77.90
84.49
w/o InfoNCE
✓
✓
✓
✓
–
72.32
89.46
97.13
77.30
84.05
Table 4: Ablation study of ProCAP components (CLIP ViT-B/16, 16-shot). We report Top-1 accuracy (%) on representative texture, remote-sensing, and fine-grained datasets.
Figure 4: Effect of prompt length ( Nctx ) on base-to-novel generalization (averaged over EuroSAT, Caltech101, OxfordPets, and UCF101). Left: average base and novel accuracies. Right: harmonic mean (HM). Performance peaks at Nctx=4 , indicating that a compact context is sufficient, while longer prompts tend to overfit under low-shot supervision.
Figure 5: Hyperparameter sensitivity of ProCAP. HM averaged over EuroSAT, OxfordPets, Caltech101, DTD, and Flowers102. (a) Sensitivity to λ and β . (b) Sensitivity to InfoNCE temperature init τp (shown as τ in the plotted sweep) with λ,β fixed.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Qualitative prediction comparison of MaPLe and ProCAP on Oxford Flowers. Columns show the input, ground truth, MaPLe prediction, and ProCAP prediction; green/red denote correct/incorrect predictions.
Figure 7: EigenCAM comparison of MaPLe and ProCAP on Oxford Flowers. Warmer regions indicate stronger contributions to the prediction.
Figure 8: Learned text-prompt means ( μ ) on EuroSAT base classes: (a) random initialization, (b) the trained baseline (96.86% base accuracy), and (c) ProCAP (98.43%).
Dataset
Base
Novel
HM
Average
85.43 ± 0.18
77.61 ± 0.31
81.12 ± 0.24
ImageNet
77.33 ± 0.12
70.00 ± 0.18
73.48 ± 0.15
Caltech101
98.97 ± 0.10
95.31 ± 0.21
97.11 ± 0.15
OxfordPets
96.49 ± 0.17
98.21 ± 0.12
97.34 ± 0.14
StanfordCars
78.65 ± 0.29
77.26 ± 0.34
77.95 ± 0.31
Flowers102
98.39 ± 0.22
75.60 ± 0.71
85.50 ± 0.49
Appendix
Table 5: Three-seed stability of ProCAP on base-to-novel generalization (mean ± standard deviation). The Average-row HM is the arithmetic mean of the 11 dataset-wise HMs; Table 1 reports aggregate HM from averaged Base and Novel accuracy.
Dataset
Method
Time (s)
FPS
Acc (%)
Flowers102
MaPLe-style ( Khattak et al., 2023a )
112.6
415.9
95.25
Flowers102
ProCAP (Full)
169.1
278.8
97.39
UCF101
MaPLe-style ( Khattak et al., 2023a )
131.3
415.6
85.21
UCF101
ProCAP (Full)
171.4
320.9
87.88
Appendix
Table 6: Training time, inference throughput, and accuracy on two representative datasets. All methods use CLIP ViT-B/16 ( Radford et al., 2021 ) in the same 16-shot setting; runtime is measured over a fixed 10-epoch benchmark on one NVIDIA A100 GPU with AMP.
Model
Epochs
Base
Novel
HM
ProCAP
10
84.05
76.40
80.04
ProCAP
25
84.28
77.15
80.56
ProCAP
50
85.43
77.61
81.33
Appendix
Table 7: Effect of training duration on ProCAP for base-to-novel generalization, averaged over 11 datasets. HM is computed from the listed average Base and Novel accuracies using Eq. ( 10 ).
Dataset
Classes
Train
Val
Test
Description
ImageNet
1,000
1.28M
–
50,000
Generic object recognition
Caltech101
100
4,128
1,649
2,465
Generic object recognition
OxfordPets
37
2,944
736
3,669
Fine-grained pets
StanfordCars
196
6,509
1,635
8,041
Fine-grained cars
Flowers102
102
4,093
1,633
2,463
Fine-grained flowers
Food101
101
50,500
20,200
30,300
Fine-grained food
Appendix
Table 8: Datasets and benchmark split sizes used in our experiments.
Dataset
Template 1
Template 2
ImageNet
a photo of a {}
a close-up photo of a {}
Caltech101
a photo of a {}
an image of a {}
OxfordPets
a photo of a {}
a close-up photo of a {}
StanfordCars
a photo of a {} car
a close-up photo of a {} car
Flowers102
a photo of a {} flower
a close-up photo of a {} flower
Food101
a photo of {}
a close-up photo of {}
Appendix
Table 9: Representative prompt templates used for each dataset. The placeholder {} is replaced by the class name before tokenization.
Prompt learning has become a dominant paradigm for adapting vision-language models (VLMs) such as CLIP to downstream tasks without modifying pretrained weights. While extending prompts to both vision and text encoders across multiple transformer layers significantly boosts performance, it dramatically increases the number of trainable parameters, with state-of-the-art methods requiring millions of parameters and abandoning the parameter efficiency that makes prompt tuning attractive. In this work, we propose MMLoP (Multi-Modal Low-Rank Prompting), a framework that achieves deep multi-modal prompting with only 11.5K trainable parameters, comparable to early text-only methods like CoOp. MMLoP parameterizes vision and text prompts at each transformer layer through a low-rank factorization that constrains prompts to a compact subspace, providing parameter efficiency while motivating the need for our complementary regularization components. To further close the accuracy gap with state-of-the-art methods, we introduce three complementary components: a self-regulating consistency loss that anchors prompted representations to frozen zero-shot CLIP features at both the feature and logit levels, a uniform drift correction that removes the global embedding shift induced by prompt tuning to preserve class-discriminative structure, and a shared up-projection that couples vision and text prompts through a common low-rank factor to enforce cross-modal alignment. Extensive experiments across three benchmarks and 11 diverse datasets demonstrate that MMLoP achieves a highly favorable accuracy-efficiency tradeoff, outperforming the majority of existing methods including those with orders of magnitude more parameters, while achieving a harmonic mean of 79.70% on base-to-novel generalization. Code is available at https://github.com/sajjad-ucsb/MMLoP.
Vision-language models like CLIP have achieved remarkable progress in cross-modal representation learning, yet suffer from systematic misclassifications among visually and semantically similar categories. We observe that such confusion patterns are not random but persistently occur between specific category pairs, revealing the model's intrinsic bias and limited fine-grained discriminative ability. To address this, we propose CAPT, a Confusion-Aware Prompt Tuning framework that enables models to learn from their own misalignment. Specifically, we construct a Confusion Bank to explicitly model stable confusion relationships across categories and misclassified samples. On this basis, we introduce a Semantic Confusion Miner (SEM) to capture global inter-class confusion through semantic difference and commonality prompts, and a Sample Confusion Miner (SAM) to retrieve representative misclassified instances from the bank and capture sample-level cues through a Diff-Manner Adapter that integrates global and local contexts. To further unify confusion information across different granularities, a Multi-Granularity Difference Expert (MGDE) module is designed to jointly leverage semantic- and sample-level experts for more robust confusion-aware reasoning. Extensive experiments on 11 benchmark datasets demonstrate that our method significantly reduces confusion-induced errors while enhancing the discriminability and generalization of both base and novel classes, successfully resolving 50.72 percent of confusable sample pairs. Code will be released at https://github.com/greatest-gourmet/CAPT.
Maoyuan Shao, Yutong Gao, Xinyang Huang +3
School of Information Engineering, Minzu University of China · School of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · National Library of China, Beijing, China +1
Few-shot prompt learning is an effective strategy for adapting CLIP to downstream tasks, but class-only prompt optimization can overfit base-class supervision and weaken transfer to unseen classes. We propose Concept-Constrained Prompt Learning (CCPL), a lightweight regularization framework that anchors learnable class prompts to frozen concept-level text prototypes without updating CLIP encoders. CCPL learns a set of shared context tokens, instantiates class prompts by appending class names, and constructs frozen concept prototypes from a class-level concept bank. During training, a text-space cosine consistency objective aligns learnable class-prompt embeddings with frozen concept prototypes; concept dropout provides additional regularization against over-reliance on fixed concept lists. At inference, CCPL optionally fuses class-prompt logits with concept-prototype logits using a controllable ensemble weight alpha. Our default configuration uses text-space concept regularization lambda = 0.5, concept dropout p = 0.3 and weak concept-guided fusion (alpha = 0.1), with no KL-based prediction consistency term. Experiments under identical automatically-generated fallback splits show that CCPL improves the base-to-new harmonic mean on DTD (+0.6) and EuroSAT (+2.9) compared with CoOp, while remaining near-neutral on OxfordPets (-0.1). Ablations indicate that text-space concept regularization is consistently beneficial, while the best concept-guided inference strength is dataset- and protocol-sensitive. These results suggest concept constraints are most effective when concept prototypes align naturally with dataset semantics, and identify fine-grained categories as a current boundary condition. The code is released at: https://github.com/richael-sang/concept-constrained-prompt-learning.
Na Sang, Ding Ma, Rui Sang +1
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA · Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA · Independent Researcher