Good Rankings, Poor Choices? Rethinking Language-Only Vision-Language Model Selection
Organizations: Yonsei University
Abstract
Language-Only Vision-Language Model Selection (LOVM) aims to identify the Vision-Language Model (VLM) with the highest zero-shot accuracy on a target task using only textual information. We revisit the existing LOVM evaluation protocol and argue that ranking metrics, such as top-5 recall and Kendall's rank correlation, do not directly assess the performance of the selected model. We therefore adopt simple regret (SR), defined as the performance gap between the best and selected models, and introduce Outlier-Robust Normalized Regret (ORNR) to account for the varying performance ranges across tasks while reducing sensitivity to outliers. Building on this revised evaluation protocol, we propose Target-Conditioned Expected Source Regret (TC-ESR), a training-free method that selects the model with the lowest similarity-weighted mean regret across source tasks. Across 22 target tasks and 43 VLMs, TC-ESR achieves the lowest mean SR and ORNR among all compared methods. Separately, we identify two sources of target performance leakage in the prior ranking-based evaluation protocol and provide corrections that remove both.
Figures & tables
| Ranking metric | Rank corr. with SR | Disagreement (%) | Mean SR loss (%p) | Median SR loss (%p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25.7 | 3.32 | 1.82 | ||
| 43.1 | 2.46 | 1.05 |
| Leakage removed | ModelGPT | SWAB | Avg. change | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None (original) | 0.443 | 0.267 | 0.504 | 0.320 | – |
| Feature selection | 0.435 | 0.252 | 0.496 | 0.302 | -3.7% |
| Exclude IN-1K | 0.418 | 0.233 | 0.482 | 0.294 | -7.7% |
| Both (final) | 0.411 | 0.180 | 0.474 | 0.283 | -14.3% |
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Dataset | Classes | Task | Domain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imagenet ( Deng et al., 2009 ) | 1000 | classification | natural image |
| SUN397 ( Xiao et al., 2010 ) | 397 | scene und. | natural image |
| Country211 ( Radford et al., 2021 ) | 211 | geolocation | natural image |
| Stanford Cars ( Krause et al., 2013 ) | 196 | classification | natural image |
| Flowers102 ( Nilsback & Zisserman, 2008 ) | 102 | classification | natural image |
| CIFAR100 ( Krizhevsky & Hinton, 2009 ) | 100 | classification | natural image |
| ID | Model | Name | Dataset | Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RN50 | RN50 | openai | WIT |
| 2 | RN101 | RN101 | openai | WIT |
| 3 | RN50x4 | RN50x4 | openai | WIT |
| 4 | RN50x16 | RN50x16 | openai | WIT |
| 5 | RN50x64 | RN50x64 | openai | WIT |
| 6 | ViT-B-32 | ViT-B/32 | laion400m_e31 | L400m |
| Field | Category labels |
|---|---|
| Domain family | Object centered natural photographs; scene centered natural photographs; texture centered photographs; document or glyph images; medical images; aerial or satellite images; synthetic or rendered images |
| Label scale type | Unordered semantic taxonomy; binary state; ordered level; numeric count; symbol or code identity; multi factor composition |
| Task | Domain family | Agreement | Label scale type | Agreement | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stanford Cars | Object centered natural photographs | 5/5 | Unordered semantic taxonomy | 5/5 | 1 |
| CIFAR100 | Object centered natural photographs | 5/5 | Unordered semantic taxonomy | 5/5 | 1 |
| CLEVR closest distance | Synthetic or rendered images | 5/5 | Ordered level | 5/5 | 0 |
| CLEVR count all | Synthetic or rendered images | 5/5 | Numeric count | 5/5 | 0 |
| Country211 | Scene centered natural photographs | 5/5 | Unordered semantic taxonomy | 5/5 | 1 |
| Diabetic Retinopathy | Medical images | 5/5 | Ordered level | 5/5 | 0 |
| Method | SR (%p) | ORNR (%) | (%) | (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| INB | 7.23 | 24.66 | 41.8 | 23.3 |
| AvgRank | 7.35 | 25.69 | 41.8 | 23.0 |
| ModelGPT | 7.11 | 24.25 | 41.1 | 18.0 |
| SWAB | 7.39 | 25.81 | 47.4 | 28.3 |
| ESR | 31.8 | 18.2 | ||
| TC-ESR | 4.66 | 17.81 | 40.0 | 22.7 |
| Method | Source Regret | SR (%p) | ORNR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ESR | SR | 5.83 | 22.56 |
| ORNR | 7.03 | 27.19 | |
| TC-ESR | SR | 4.66 | 17.81 |
| ORNR | 4.70 | 18.97 |
| Method | cars | cifar100 | clevr-distance | clevr-count | country211 | retinopathy | dmlab | dtd | eurosat | fer2013 | flowers | gtsrb | kitti | mnist | pcam | pets | renderedsst2 | resisc45 | stl10 | sun397 | svhn | voc2007 | Avg. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SR ( p) | INB | 0.00 | 0.10 | 5.37 | 11.68 | 3.56 | 49.81 | 9.06 | 0.00 | 5.87 | 2.70 | 0.49 | 8.73 | 12.52 | 13.03 | 9.09 | 0.41 | 14.39 | 0.00 | 0.49 | 1.27 | 10.56 | 0.00 | 7.23 |
| AvgRank | 0.46 | 0.00 | 9.59 | 12.85 | 4.61 | 42.93 | 7.75 | 1.22 | 0.00 | 8.16 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 32.49 | 12.47 | 4.62 | 0.00 | 7.08 | 0.57 | 0.96 | 0.09 | 12.38 | 3.37 | 7.35 | |
| ModelGPT | 0.00 | 0.10 | 5.79 | 11.68 | 3.56 | 49.81 | 8.93 | 0.00 | 5.87 | 3.24 | 0.49 | 6.11 | 12.52 | 13.03 | 8.64 | 0.37 | 13.64 | 0.00 | 0.53 | 1.27 | 10.56 | 0.34 | 7.11 | |
| SWAB | 0.00 | 0.02 | 9.59 | 11.68 | 3.56 | 49.13 | 9.06 | 0.00 | 5.87 | 2.70 | 0.49 | 8.73 | 12.52 | 13.03 | 8.64 | 0.41 | 10.29 | 0.00 | 0.49 | 1.27 | 12.38 | 2.69 | 7.39 | |
| ESR | 0.29 | 1.99 | 3.27 | 9.58 | 7.93 | 20.57 | 5.60 | 0.21 | 0.04 | 2.68 | 3.17 | 0.17 | 32.35 | 10.12 | 10.46 | 0.79 | 15.32 | 0.95 | 0.86 | 1.82 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 5.83 | |
| TC-ESR | 0.00 | 0.10 | 3.27 | 15.16 | 4.61 | 2.22 | 5.60 | 0.00 | 5.87 | 2.70 | 0.49 | 0.00 | 12.52 | 10.12 | 5.94 | 0.41 | 14.94 | 0.57 | 0.49 | 0.09 | 17.52 | 0.00 | 4.66 |
| Type | Denominator | INB | AvgRank | ModelGPT | SWAB | ESR | TC-ESR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| One-sided | Min–max | 21.67 | 22.26 | 21.35 | 22.16 | 19.29 | 15.97 |
| 26.99 | 28.65 | 26.61 | 28.78 | 23.78 | 19.52 | ||
| 29.35 | 31.19 | 28.97 | 31.26 | 26.58 | 21.47 | ||
| 1.0 IQR | 26.05 | 28.48 | 25.78 | 28.07 | 23.63 | 19.01 | |
| 1.5 IQR (ORNR) | 24.66 | 25.69 | 24.25 | 25.81 | 22.56 | 17.81 | |
| 2.0 IQR | 24.20 | 25.19 | 23.79 | 25.23 | 21.82 | 17.41 |
| Perturbation | Min–max | ORNR | Reduction (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weakest candidate 50% | 4.58 | 1.19 | 74.0 |
| Weakest candidate 0 | 6.54 | 1.17 | 82.0 |
| Bottom 5% removed | 3.48 | 1.82 | 47.7 |
| Bottom 10% removed | 5.36 | 3.62 | 32.5 |
| Bottom 20% removed | 7.84 | 6.00 | 23.5 |
| Method | Feature selection | SR | ORNR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ModelGPT | 7.11 | 24.25 | 41.1 | 18.0 | |
| SR | 7.14 | 24.16 | 42.1 | 17.1 | |
| ORNR | 7.12 | 24.18 | 42.5 | 16.6 | |
| SWAB | 7.39 | 25.81 | 47.4 | 28.3 | |
| SR | 8.58 | 28.40 | 34.3 | 10.2 | |
| ORNR | 8.10 | 26.42 | 36.6 | 10.9 |
| Method | Distinct candidate models | Share of the most frequent (%) |
|---|---|---|
| INB | 1 | 100.0 |
| AvgRank | 1 | 100.0 |
| ModelGPT | 3 | 95.0 |
| SWAB | 5 | 80.9 |
| ESR | 2 | 95.5 |
| TC-ESR | 8 | 45.5 |
| SR (%p) | ORNR (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | w/ PCam | w/o PCam | w/ PCam | w/o PCam |
| INB | 49.81 | 49.81 | 70.37 | 70.37 |
| AvgRank | 42.93 | 42.93 | 60.65 | 60.65 |
| ModelGPT | 49.81 | 49.81 | 70.37 | 70.37 |
| SWAB | 49.13 | 49.13 | 69.40 | 69.40 |
| ESR | 20.57 | 20.57 | 29.06 | 29.06 |
| Domain family | Target | #Sources | |
| Object centered natural photographs | Stanford Cars | 8 | 4.24 |
| CIFAR100 | 8 | 3.93 | |
| FER2013 | 8 | 3.63 | |
| Flowers102 | 8 | 5.25 | |
| KITTI closest distance | 8 | 6.24 | |
| Oxford Pets | 8 | 4.27 |
| Method | SR (%p) | ORNR (%) |
|---|---|---|
| INB | 5.20 | 22.48 |
| AvgRank | 5.65 | 24.03 |
| ModelGPT | 5.08 | 22.06 |
| SWAB | 5.40 | 23.73 |
| ESR | 5.13 | 22.25 |
| TC-ESR | 4.78 | 18.51 |
Model Selection
Model selection chooses models, features, or configurations that balance predictive fit, generalization, complexity, and deployment constraints.
See all 96 papers