Image Clustering with Vision-Language Model Embeddings
Authors: João P. Matos-Carvalho, Nuno Fachada
Organizations: LASIGE, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, 1749-016, Portugal · COPELABS, Lusófona University, Lisboa, 1700-921, Portugal · INESC INOV, Lisboa, 1000-029, Portugal
Pretrained vision-language models provide image representations whose suitability for clustering may vary with feature extraction, image domain, and partitioning algorithm. We compare nine representation pipelines across seven image benchmarks and four clustering configurations, yielding 252 baseline combinations. Eight pipelines extract visual features, including two vision-only references; the ninth generates descriptions and embeds the resulting text. With agglomerative clustering (Ward linkage) fixed, Qwen3-VL achieves the highest adjusted Rand index (ARI) on five datasets, including 0.925 on MNIST, while BLIP-2 leads on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 with ARIs of 0.925 and 0.591, respectively. A separate sensitivity analysis compares raw and L2-normalized embeddings at their original dimensionality across all 63 dataset-representation pairs. Normalization preserves the highest-ARI representation in every dataset, increases ARI in 35 pairs, decreases it in 26, and leaves two numerically unchanged. On the SVHN dataset, the highest ARI remains low, rising from 0.097 to 0.098 after normalization. The evaluated caption-mediated pipeline obtains relatively high ARI on isolated digits but does not consistently exceed direct visual features. These findings support selecting and evaluating complete representation-clustering pipelines for the intended domain, with explicit attention to extraction and normalization choices.
Figures & tables
Study/ Model
Ref.
Year
Representation or grouping strategy
Additional training or processing
Relation to this study
VLM2Vec
[ 9 ]
2025
Instruction-conditioned multimodal embeddings
Contrastive embedding training
Learns task-oriented embedding spaces
mmE5
[ 10 ]
2025
Multimodal and multilingual embeddings
Training on synthetic and labeled data
Studies embedding training-data quality
SCAN
[ 1 ]
2020
Self-supervised features and learned cluster assignments
Representation learning, clustering, and self-labeling
Reference for learned image clustering
SCP
[ 17 ] ⋆
2025
Frozen visual features and positive pairs
Small clustering-head training
Fixed encoder with learned assignments
FUNGI
[ 18 ]
2024
Pretrained embeddings augmented with projected gradients
Gradient-based feature construction; no weight updates
Table 1: Selected related work compared in terms of representation or grouping strategy, additional training or processing, and relationship to the present study.
Figure 1: Experimental workflow across seven datasets, nine representation pipelines, and four clustering configurations ( 7×9×4=252 baseline combinations). The visual route includes six vision–language models and two vision-only models (DINOv3 and DiT), while the caption-mediated route generates and encodes image descriptions. Each representation is clustered independently, with the number of clusters K determined by the reference class count. Reference labels are used only for evaluation and to determine K , not for feature extraction or fitting cluster assignments. The baseline uses raw, single-precision embeddings at their original dimensionality; a separate sensitivity analysis compares raw and L2-normalized embeddings with AHC-Ward clustering fixed.
Dataset
Ref.
Images
Classes
MNIST
[ 19 ]
10,000
10
USPS
[ 20 ]
2,007
10
Fashion-MNIST
[ 21 ]
10,000
10
EMNIST (balanced)
[ 22 ]
18,800
47
SVHN
[ 23 ]
26,032
10
CIFAR-10
[ 24 ]
10,000
10
Table 2: Evaluated test partitions of the seven image benchmarks, showing the number of images and reference classes.
Representation
Checkpoint identifier
CLIP
openai/clip-vit-base-patch32
SigLIP2
google/siglip2-base-patch16-224
BLIP
Salesforce/blip-image-captioning-base
BLIP-2
Salesforce/blip2-opt-2.7b
LLaVA
llava-hf/llava-1.5-7b-hf
Qwen3-VL
Qwen/Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
Table 3: Pretrained checkpoint identifiers. The extracted components and embedding dimensions are specified in Table 4 .
Representation
Component and aggregation
Dim.
CLIP
Visual patch-state mean, followed by vision post-layer normalization and visual projection
512
SigLIP2
Mean of all visual patch states
768
BLIP
Visual-state mean after the first token
768
BLIP-2
Visual-backbone state mean after the first token, rather than language-model states
1,408
LLaVA
Mean after the first entry of the returned image-feature sequence
4,096
Qwen3-VL
Mean of all tokens in each returned image-feature sequence
4,096
Table 4: Representation components and aggregation used in the main comparison. Dimensions refer to the vectors supplied to clustering. The baseline uses no additional vector normalization; the sensitivity analysis applies per-image L2 normalization. The routes describe the evaluated implementations, not an optimization over alternative outputs of each model.
Representation
MNIST
Fashion
EMNIST
USPS
SVHN
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
CLIP
0.511
0.534
0.283
0.426
0.013
0.508
0.186
SigLIP2
0.479
0.529
0.332
0.687
0.012
0.575
0.311
BLIP
0.614
0.515
0.324
0.579
0.010
0.453
0.216
BLIP-2
0.588
0.526
0.327
0.685
0.033
0.925
0.591
LLaVA
0.176
0.237
0.106
0.266
0.005
0.340
0.168
Qwen3-VL
0.925
0.573
0.434
0.717
0.097
0.777
0.475
Table 5: Adjusted Rand index (ARI) with a fixed AHC-Ward clustering algorithm. Bold values indicate the best representation for each dataset.
Representation
Mean rank
Mean ARI
Median ARI
Wins
Qwen3-VL
1.286
0.571
0.573
5
BLIP-2
2.714
0.525
0.588
2
SigLIP2
3.714
0.418
0.479
0
BLIP
5.000
0.387
0.453
0
CLIP
5.000
0.352
0.426
0
DINOv3
5.286
0.403
0.468
0
Table 6: Descriptive summary of representation performance with AHC-Ward clustering held fixed. Ranks are computed within each dataset (1 indicates the best performance) and averaged equally across the seven datasets. Wins indicate the number of datasets on which each representation achieves the highest ARI. Mean and median ARI are reported as descriptive summaries of the evaluated benchmarks and should be interpreted in light of differences in dataset characteristics and clustering difficulty.
Representation
MNIST
Fashion
EMNIST
USPS
SVHN
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
CLIP
0.474
0.517
0.284
0.472
0.011
0.411
0.189
SigLIP2
0.534
0.508
0.339
0.675
0.023
0.611
0.310
BLIP
0.670
0.488
0.301
0.555
0.014
0.486
0.213
BLIP-2
0.507
0.564
0.333
0.716
0.035
0.911
0.584
LLaVA
0.312
0.451
0.159
0.372
0.010
0.391
0.200
Qwen3-VL
0.933
0.583
0.440
0.841
0.098
0.909
0.516
Table 7: ARI with AHC-Ward after per-image L2 normalization, retaining the original embedding dimensions. Bold marks the highest value in each dataset before rounding.
Representation
Raw ARI
L2 ARI
Δ
Higher
Lower
Equal
CLIP
0.352
0.337
-0.0147
3
4
0
SigLIP2
0.418
0.428
+0.0104
4
3
0
BLIP
0.387
0.390
+0.0022
3
4
0
BLIP-2
0.525
0.521
-0.0035
4
3
0
LLaVA
0.185
0.271
+0.0850
7
0
0
Qwen3-VL
0.571
0.617
+0.0460
7
0
0
Table 8: Mean ARI with AHC-Ward, equally weighted across seven datasets. Δ is L2 minus raw. Higher/lower/equal counts compare L2 with raw within the same representation and dataset, using a numerical tolerance of 10−12 .
Representation
K-means++
K-means (random)
AHC-Ward
Fuzzy c-means
Mean
CLIP
0.314
0.308
0.352
0.062
0.259
SigLIP2
0.386
0.400
0.418
0.084
0.322
BLIP
0.378
0.385
0.387
0.080
0.308
BLIP-2
0.474
0.506
0.525
0.081
0.397
LLaVA
0.170
0.170
0.185
0.053
0.145
Qwen3-VL
0.546
0.588
0.571
0.085
0.447
Table 9: ARI averaged equally across seven datasets, separately for each clustering configuration. The final column also averages equally across configurations; bold indicates the highest mean ARI for each representation among the four clustering configurations, selected before rounding. These averages summarize performance across datasets with differing characteristics and clustering difficulty.
Dataset
Representation
Clustering config.
ARI
V-measure
F1 (greedy)
MNIST
Qwen3-VL
K-means++
0.941
0.933
0.973
Fashion-MNIST
Qwen3-VL
K-means (random)
0.630
0.728
0.751
EMNIST
Qwen3-VL
AHC-Ward
0.434
0.687
0.554
USPS
Qwen3-VL
K-means (random)
0.759
0.834
0.813
SVHN
Qwen3-VL
AHC-Ward
0.097
0.158
0.217
CIFAR-10
BLIP-2
K-means (random)
0.970
0.964
0.986
Table 10: Observed maximum-ARI configuration per dataset, selected retrospectively among 36 configurations. V-measure and weighted F1 refer to that same configuration.
Representation
Dimension
Recorded ms/image
CLIP
512
1.49
SigLIP2
768
4.18
BLIP
768
17.91
BLIP-2
1,408
66.07
LLaVA
4,096
10.63
Qwen3-VL
4,096
10.40
Table 11: Pooled embedding extraction time (total recorded seconds divided by total images), with embedding dimensions repeated from Table 4 for ease of analysis. Local timings exclude model loading, while API timings include caption generation and network latency. Local extraction was performed on an NVIDIA DGX Spark; timings reflect the respective local and remote execution conditions.
Figure 2: Illustrative PCA–t-SNE projections selected retrospectively from the quantitative results. Top: Qwen3-VL on MNIST (left) and SVHN (right), contrasting domains for a fixed representation. Bottom: BLIP-2 (left) and caption-mediated embeddings (right) on CIFAR-10, contrasting representation routes for a fixed dataset. Colors denote reference classes, not predicted clusters. Panels are independently projected and rescaled; visible separation does not validate clustering in the original embedding spaces.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Representation
MNIST
Fashion
EMNIST
USPS
SVHN
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
CLIP
0.630
0.675
0.557
0.578
0.023
0.641
0.552
SigLIP2
0.672
0.688
0.611
0.752
0.025
0.705
0.657
BLIP
0.757
0.659
0.601
0.713
0.018
0.605
0.548
BLIP-2
0.726
0.720
0.603
0.740
0.084
0.938
0.822
LLaVA
0.348
0.413
0.357
0.398
0.022
0.494
0.530
Qwen3-VL
0.934
0.698
0.687
0.824
0.158
0.860
0.781
Appendix
Table 12: V-measure with a fixed AHC-Ward clustering algorithm. Bold values indicate the best representation for each dataset.
Representation
MNIST
Fashion
EMNIST
USPS
SVHN
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
CLIP
0.622
0.656
0.561
0.629
0.021
0.608
0.559
SigLIP2
0.704
0.679
0.604
0.732
0.045
0.726
0.654
BLIP
0.780
0.651
0.590
0.685
0.024
0.612
0.554
BLIP-2
0.685
0.714
0.605
0.770
0.079
0.928
0.823
LLaVA
0.514
0.627
0.431
0.508
0.020
0.564
0.562
Qwen3-VL
0.939
0.718
0.688
0.872
0.183
0.910
0.786
Appendix
Table 13: V-measure with AHC-Ward after per-image L2 normalization, retaining the original embedding dimensions. Bold marks the highest value in each dataset before rounding.
Representation
Algorithm
ARI
V-measure
F1 (greedy)
Silhouette
CLIP
K-means++
0.436
0.520
0.656
0.111
K-means (random)
0.373
0.498
0.591
0.118
AHC-Ward
0.511
0.630
0.636
0.088
Fuzzy c-means
0.062
0.126
0.049
0.157
SigLIP2
K-means++
0.488
0.616
0.697
0.167
K-means (random)
0.488
0.623
0.643
0.165
Appendix
Table 14: Detailed results for MNIST for all clustering configurations. Bold marks column maxima before rounding for ARI, V-measure, and F1 (greedy centroid mapping). Silhouette is not compared across feature spaces.
Representation
Algorithm
ARI
V-measure
F1 (greedy)
Silhouette
CLIP
K-means++
0.481
0.638
0.527
0.182
K-means (random)
0.515
0.636
0.644
0.159
AHC-Ward
0.534
0.675
0.651
0.160
Fuzzy c-means
0.145
0.319
0.051
0.180
SigLIP2
K-means++
0.534
0.668
0.699
0.167
K-means (random)
0.515
0.660
0.687
0.166
Appendix
Table 15: Detailed results for Fashion-MNIST for all clustering configurations. Bold marks column maxima before rounding for ARI, V-measure, and F1 (greedy centroid mapping). Silhouette is not compared across feature spaces.
Representation
Algorithm
ARI
V-measure
F1 (greedy)
Silhouette
CLIP
K-means++
0.228
0.497
0.365
0.068
K-means (random)
0.237
0.498
0.409
0.073
AHC-Ward
0.283
0.557
0.394
0.041
Fuzzy c-means
0.011
0.069
0.002
-0.076
SigLIP2
K-means++
0.280
0.545
0.448
0.087
K-means (random)
0.282
0.549
0.451
0.091
Appendix
Table 16: Detailed results for EMNIST for all clustering configurations. Bold marks column maxima before rounding for ARI, V-measure, and F1 (greedy centroid mapping). Silhouette is not compared across feature spaces.
Representation
Algorithm
ARI
V-measure
F1 (greedy)
Silhouette
CLIP
K-means++
0.390
0.527
0.576
0.169
K-means (random)
0.354
0.530
0.482
0.172
AHC-Ward
0.426
0.578
0.542
0.147
Fuzzy c-means
0.104
0.159
0.037
0.162
SigLIP2
K-means++
0.472
0.646
0.584
0.141
K-means (random)
0.547
0.667
0.695
0.196
Appendix
Table 17: Detailed results for USPS for all clustering configurations. Bold marks column maxima before rounding for ARI, V-measure, and F1 (greedy centroid mapping). Silhouette is not compared across feature spaces.
Representation
Algorithm
ARI
V-measure
F1 (greedy)
Silhouette
CLIP
K-means++
0.016
0.023
0.138
0.042
K-means (random)
0.017
0.024
0.143
0.043
AHC-Ward
0.013
0.023
0.143
0.007
Fuzzy c-means
0.009
0.009
0.064
0.033
SigLIP2
K-means++
0.014
0.024
0.138
0.059
K-means (random)
0.014
0.025
0.138
0.059
Appendix
Table 18: Detailed results for SVHN for all clustering configurations. Bold marks column maxima before rounding for ARI, V-measure, and F1 (greedy centroid mapping). Silhouette is not compared across feature spaces.
Representation
Algorithm
ARI
V-measure
F1 (greedy)
Silhouette
CLIP
K-means++
0.457
0.605
0.705
0.098
K-means (random)
0.465
0.605
0.704
0.101
AHC-Ward
0.508
0.641
0.689
0.075
Fuzzy c-means
0.095
0.190
0.045
0.106
SigLIP2
K-means++
0.617
0.731
0.805
0.142
K-means (random)
0.632
0.743
0.786
0.144
Appendix
Table 19: Detailed results for CIFAR-10 for all clustering configurations. Bold marks column maxima before rounding for ARI, V-measure, and F1 (greedy centroid mapping). Silhouette is not compared across feature spaces.
Representation
Algorithm
ARI
V-measure
F1 (greedy)
Silhouette
CLIP
K-means++
0.186
0.536
0.347
0.050
K-means (random)
0.198
0.538
0.361
0.050
AHC-Ward
0.186
0.552
0.351
0.032
Fuzzy c-means
0.006
0.072
0.001
-0.029
SigLIP2
K-means++
0.297
0.634
0.461
0.075
K-means (random)
0.318
0.641
0.486
0.079
Appendix
Table 20: Detailed results for CIFAR-100 for all clustering configurations. Bold marks column maxima before rounding for ARI, V-measure, and F1 (greedy centroid mapping). Silhouette is not compared across feature spaces.
Vision-language pre-training has reshaped image clustering, giving rise to language-assisted image clustering (LaIC), which leverages textual semantics to complement visual representations. Despite the rapid proliferation of LaIC methods, it remains unclear how much LaIC has actually advanced image clustering, as existing studies generally suffer from major limitations, including inconsistent experimental settings, inadequate dataset selection, and limited evaluation dimensions. To address this gap, we introduce VLM4Cluster, a comprehensive benchmark for image clustering in the era of pre-trained vision-language models (VLMs). VLM4Cluster implements 17 representative methods spanning classical, deep, and language-assisted image clustering, and evaluates them on 20 datasets covering classical, challenging, fine-grained, large-scale, and out-of-distribution settings. Beyond effectiveness, VLM4Cluster systematically investigates image clustering along three complementary dimensions: robustness to adversarial perturbations, generalization under distribution shifts, and computational efficiency. Our study shows that LaIC substantially advances the clustering performance frontier on many semantically demanding benchmarks, generally exhibits stronger generalization under distribution shifts, and achieves a more favorable effectiveness-efficiency trade-off. However, its gains become less consistent on large-scale and fine-grained datasets, while language assistance does not systematically reduce sensitivity to adversarial perturbations. VLM4Cluster is released at https://github.com/YuanweiHuu/VLM4Cluster.
Yuanwei Hu, Bo Peng, Yuheng Jia +3
University College London · The University of Queensland · Southeast University +2
Language-Assisted Image Clustering (LAIC) augments the input images with additional texts with the help of vision-language models (VLMs) to promote clustering performance. Despite recent progress, existing LAIC methods often overlook two issues: (i) textual features constructed for each image are highly similar, leading to weak inter-class discriminability; (ii) the clustering step is restricted to pre-built image-text alignments, limiting the potential for better utilization of the text modality. To address these issues, we propose a new LAIC framework with two complementary components. First, we exploit cross-modal relations to produce more discriminative self-supervision signals for clustering, as it compatible with most VLMs training mechanisms. Second, we learn category-wise continuous semantic centers via prompt learning to produce the final clustering assignments. Extensive experiments on eight benchmark datasets demonstrate that our method achieves an average improvement of 2.6% over state-of-the-art methods, and the learned semantic centers exhibit strong interpretability. Code is available in the supplementary material.
Jun Ma, Xu Zhang, Zhengxing Jiao +4
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China · School of Computing Information Sciences, Saint Francis University, Hong Kong, China · Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Vision-language models such as CLIP are highly useful for diverse tasks due to their shared image-text embedding space. Despite this, the image and text embeddings are often poorly aligned, affecting downstream performance. Recent work has hypothesized that this can be attributed to an information imbalance: images contain more information than their captions describe. In this work, we propose TEVI, a framework that uses captions as a signal for what to retain from image embeddings. Specifically, we use sparse autoencoders to disentangle image embeddings and train a masking module to selectively reconstruct the embedding based on a given caption. In a controlled setup with synthetic captions, we show that TEVI is effective at preserving caption-described attributes while discarding others. We find that this extends to CLIP models trained on natural images, where TEVI learns to mask meaningfully and allows retrieval based on conditioning. Finally, we use TEVI to achieve improved retrieval performance across coarse-grained and fine-grained benchmarks. Code available at https://github.com/neuroexplicit-saar/TEVI.
Sweta Mahajan, Sukrut Rao, Jiahao Xie +2
Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarland Informatics Campus, Saarbrücken, Germany · Department of Language Science and Technology, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany