Representation Alignment from a Few Paired Data via Distilled Optimal Transport
Authors: Julien Kordes, Reuben Dorent
Organizations: Sorbonne Université, Institut du Cerveau - Paris Brain Institute - ICM, CNRS, Inria, Inserm, AP-HP, Hôpital de la Pitié Salpêtrière, 75013 Paris, France
Aligning two independently pretrained unimodal encoders typically demands millions of paired examples. In this paper, we study the regime where only N∼100--500 pairs are available, while unpaired data on either side is abundant. Our method expresses every representation by its similarities to the N paired anchors, which places both modalities in a common coordinate system; matches the two point clouds with a single entropic optimal transport problem solved over the entire pool, whose marginal constraints counteract the hubness that defeats nearest-neighbor matching; and distills the resulting plan into two lightweight encoders, so that the correspondence becomes inductive. We additionally put this marginal constraint in relation with the one-step hub corrections of the bilingual lexicon induction literature. Pairing is required only for the anchors: the unpaired collections may be drawn independently from the two marginals, so that no item outside the anchor set needs to have both of its modalities observed. We evaluate on image-text and molecule-text alignment, where our method outperforms existing approaches at the same anchor budget on Flickr30k, MS-COCO and ChEBI-20.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of AnchorDOT. Step 1: modality-specific representations are expressed by their similarity profile to a small set of shared anchors, embedding them in a common anchor-relative coordinate space . Step 2: an entropic optimal transport coupling is solved between the two anchor-relative embedding spaces, recovering a soft cross-modal correspondence between points. Step 3: this coupling is used as a pseudo-pairing signal to train two lightweight encoders fθ and gψ , via contrastive learning directly on the original pretrained embeddings, distilling the transport plan into a shared aligned space that requires no anchors and no optimal transport at inference time.
Flickr30k
MS-COCO
Image → Text
Text → Image
Image → Text
Text → Image
Method
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
Contrastive
22.05
49.10
60.45
22.30
48.05
59.60
14.60
40.65
54.95
15.00
40.55
54.30
ASIF
10.35
29.10
42.45
9.55
29.80
43.05
15.15
48.65
69.95
14.20
48.80
69.70
CSA
0.90
3.15
5.60
0.95
3.55
6.10
1.30
5.55
9.40
1.35
5.70
8.95
SUE
7.80
24.50
37.50
7.35
26.80
38.05
9.90
36.60
55.80
9.10
37.25
56.35
Table 1: Cross-modal retrieval at N=500 anchors, recall@ k (%). All baselines are re-run under our protocol, with the same frozen backbones, anchors and test split, averaged over five seeds. Our re-run of SUE exceeds its published Flickr30k results at this budget (I2T R@1 7.80 vs. 4.25 ).
Table 3
Figure 2: Recall@10 (I2T/T2I mean) under two independent ablations on the pool composition. (a)–(b) Recall@ 10 vs. number of anchor pairs N , at fixed pool and test split, over the full and low- N ranges respectively: (a) restricted to our method and the contrastive baseline, (b) all six methods of Table 1 . (c) Recall@ 10 vs. unpaired pool size at fixed N=500 and test split.
Figure 3: Recall@ 10 on Flickr30k as a function of the overlap o , for SUE, SOTAlign and our method.
Figure 4: (a) N10 skewness (lower is better) and (b) recall@ 10 of nearest neighbor, the inverted softmax, CSLS and our converged coupling, on the same anchor-relative cost between the 400 held-out Flickr30k test pairs, in both retrieval directions. Error bars denote ±1 std over 5 seeds.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Recall comparison of the transductive OT teacher with how much is retained after distillation to the inductive encoders
Figure 6: Participation ratio as a function of γ evaluated on Flickr30k for three anchor budgets N .
Figure 7: Recall comparison of our method to existing unsupervised baselines on Flickr30k with the same usual setting
Figure 8: Hubness and recall@10 comparison on Flickr30k and MS-COCO for the Bridge cost against our method. The N10 skewness gives similar results while the recall@10 drops considerably when using the Bridge cost suggesting that our method benefits from representing a point from its similarity to all anchors and not only the closest one.
Figure 9: Hubness and recall@10 comparison on Flickr30k and MS-COCO for the KPG-RL cost against our method. Both N10 skewness and recall@10 give similar results with our method getting slightly better performances on the retrieval task
Figure 10: Recall@k as a function of the weight α in the FGW setting
Figure 11: Examples of images generated from a custom caption following Yacobi et al. [2025] ’s generation protocol
Figure 12: Examples of zero-shot classification on ImageNet comparing our method to SUE, SOTAlign (all trained on Flickr30k) and a pretrained CLIP checkpoint
Figure 13: Comparison of our method, SUE and SOTAlign on zero-shot retrieval on Flickr30k after being trained on 30k samples from MS-COCO
Figure 14: Text to Image retrieval examples on the dataset Flickr30k
Figure 15: Image to Text retrieval examples on the dataset MS-COCO
Figure 16: Text to Molecule retrieval examples on the dataset ChEBI-20
Image → Text
Text → Image
Method
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
Contrastive
22.05 (2.21)
49.10 (2.48)
60.45 (2.99)
22.30 (2.76)
48.05 (3.07)
59.60 (3.20)
ASIF
10.35 (0.57)
29.10 (2.68)
42.45 (3.24)
9.55 (0.82)
29.80 (2.17)
43.05 (1.56)
CSA
0.90 (0.45)
3.15 (1.28)
5.60 (1.27)
0.95 (0.65)
3.55 (0.84)
6.10 (0.96)
SUE
7.80 (1.51)
24.50 (1.71)
37.50 (0.85)
7.35 (0.70)
26.80 (1.00)
38.05 (1.08)
SOTAlign
35.60 (2.05)
65.00 (1.92)
76.20 (3.29)
35.20 (2.31)
65.10 (2.06)
75.55 (2.27)
Appendix
Table 4: Complement of Table 1 with std over 5 seeds for Flickr30k.
Image → Text
Text → Image
Method
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
Contrastive
14.60 (0.58)
40.65 (2.41)
54.95 (1.45)
15.00 (1.43)
40.55 (2.69)
54.30 (2.64)
ASIF
15.15 (1.04)
48.65 (2.93)
69.95 (2.42)
14.20 (2.28)
48.80 (2.26)
69.70 (2.00)
CSA
1.30 (0.73)
5.55 (1.47)
9.40 (1.39)
1.35 (1.01)
5.70 (1.68)
8.95 (1.91)
SUE
9.90 (0.72)
36.60 (1.34)
55.80 (3.95)
9.10 (1.07)
37.25 (1.56)
56.35 (2.31)
SOTAlign
30.50 (1.93)
70.10 (1.86)
84.50 (2.46)
30.90 (1.19)
69.70 (2.78)
84.50 (2.08)
Appendix
Table 5: Complement of Table 1 with std over 5 seeds for MS-COCO.
Molecule → Text
Text → Molecule
Method
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
Contrastive
16.10
37.90
48.20
15.10
36.15
47.05
ASIF
8.40 (0.91)
28.20 (1.52)
40.90 (2.28)
14.55 (0.60)
35.85 (1.46)
49.40 (0.91)
CSA
0.20 (0.20)
1.10 (0.84)
2.55 (0.51)
0.65 (0.52)
2.45 (1.08)
4.40 (1.52)
SUE
3.25 (0.77)
14.85 (2.71)
25.05 (3.83)
3.35 (1.01)
15.10 (1.65)
26.10 (3.52)
SOTAlign
20.30 (1.02)
47.15 (2.33)
60.60 (0.76)
20.30 (1.43)
47.80 (2.03)
62.20 (0.93)
Appendix
Table 6: Complement of Table 3 with std over 5 seeds for ChEBI-20.
Setting
Value
Ours
SOTAlign
Speedup
Varying number of anchors ( M=2000 )
N=100
5.9 ± 3.4
77.1 ± 3.5
13.07 ×
N=500
5.0 ± 0.4
75.0 ± 0.2
15.00 ×
N=1000
7.9 ± 0.5
76.0 ± 0.2
9.62 ×
N=5000
29.2 ± 6.8
99.6 ± 0.3
3.41 ×
Varying number of unpaired points ( N=500 )
Appendix
Table 7: Training wall-clock time (seconds) on Flickr30k, averaged over 3 seeds. We vary either the number of anchors N while fixing M=2000 , or the number of unpaired points M while fixing N=500 . Speedup is measured relative to SOTAlign.
Hyperparameter
Value
Projection dimension
1024
Optimizer
Adam
Learning rate
10−3
Weight decay
10−2
Warmup steps
200
Epochs
200
Appendix
Table 8: Training hyperparameters, fixed across datasets and seeds.
Figure 17: Held-out rank (mean, both retrieval directions), N10 skewness and recall@1 as a function of the epsilon multiplier η , one curve per γ value. The selected (γ⋆,η⋆) minimizes this held-out rank.
Dataset
γ⋆
η⋆
Flickr30k
0.75
0.02
MS-COCO
0.75
0.02
ChEBI-20
1.00
0.02
Appendix
Table 9: Selected profile hyperparameters per dataset (seed 0)
The Platonic Representation Hypothesis posits that neural networks trained on different modalities converge toward a shared statistical model of the world. Recent work exploits this convergence by aligning frozen pretrained vision and language models with lightweight alignment layers, but typically relies on contrastive losses and millions of paired samples. In this work, we ask whether meaningful alignment can be achieved with substantially less supervision. We introduce a semi-supervised setting in which pretrained unimodal encoders are aligned using a small number of image-text pairs together with large amounts of unpaired data. To address this challenge, we propose SOTAlign, a two-stage framework that first recovers a coarse shared geometry from limited paired data using a linear teacher, and then refines the alignment on unpaired samples via an optimal-transport-based divergence that transfers relational structure without overconstraining the target space. SOTAlign effectively leverages unpaired images and text, learning robust joint embeddings across datasets and encoder pairs, and significantly outperforming supervised and semi-supervised baselines. Code is available at https://github.com/ExplainableML/SOTAlign.
Simon Roschmann, Paul Krzakala, Sonia Mazelet +2
Helmholtz Munich · Technical University of Munich · Munich Center for Machine Learning +3
Multimodal representations enable zero-shot classification and retrieval, but aligning independently trained models usually requires large amounts of paired data. Yet, the Platonic Representation Hypothesis suggests that models trained on different modalities may converge spontaneously toward a shared representation geometry. But then, do we even need paired examples for cross-modal alignment? Remarkably, we show that paired examples are unnecessary for coarse cross-modal alignment. Our simple Wasserstein Procrustes method with a coarse geometric initialization aligns two disjoint embedding sets by estimating a single orthogonal map without seeing any pairs. Across datasets, modalities, and unimodal models, we show that we can consistently align independently trained representations without pairs, and standard geometric alignment metrics accurately predict when this is possible. Nevertheless, we can naturally benefit from paired examples. In the very few-pair regime, our method substantially outperforms existing ones, while staying competitive with pair-based methods with more added examples. Finally, we demonstrate that the resulting alignments can enable text-to-image generation without paired examples. These results show that independently trained models often share enough geometry to establish cross-modal correspondence with little or no paired data.
We study the problem of aligning data from multiple modalities into a shared representation space, focusing on settings where strong pretrained unimodal encoders are available but cross-modal paired data are scarce. We propose a structure-preserving alignment framework, joint kernel entropic Gromov--Wasserstein Optimal Transport (JK-EGW), which maps multiple modalities into a common latent space by minimizing a quadratic optimal transport objective. JK-EGW leverages fine-grained similarity relationships within and across modalities to construct a global affinity kernel instead of relying on raw feature-space distances. Our framework naturally provides explicit control over the geometry and distribution of the latent embedding. On the theory side, we establish parametric sample complexity rate of n−1/2, matching the corresponding rates for standard, entropic and Gromov--Wasserstein optimal transport. On the algorithmic side, we derive a scalable alternating procedure to solve JK-EGW with entropic optimal transport (EOT) updates through a low-rank kernel approximation and a variational lifting. This lifting scheme effectively relieves the burden of a quadratic objective, and allowing us to take the advantage of existing EOT solvers. Empirically, we focus on post-hoc alignment of embeddings from pretrained encoders in data-scarce regimes, and show that our proposed method achieves improved multimodal retrieval performance compared to existing alignment baselines.
Yixuan Florence Wu, Yilun Zhu, Naichen Shi
Department of Engineering Sciences and Applied Mathematics Northwestern University Evanston, IL 60208, USA · Deparment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA · Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences Department of Mechanical Engineering Northwestern University Evanston, IL 60208, USA