Vision-language models such as CLIP enable zero-shot classification from arbitrary class names, but under test-time corruptions, their visual encoder projects distorted features onto incorrect textual anchors with high confidence: a phenomenon we term modality bias. Standard entropy minimization reinforces these overconfident errors, which creates a confirmation-bias loop and collapses the predicted label distribution. We propose an online test-time adaptation (TTA) method that breaks this loop at three levels. At the representation level, a frozen self-supervised backbone (e.g., DINO v2) is combined with CLIP through a cross-covariance logit ensemble. CLIP text prototypes are projected into the feature space of this text-free backbone, so the self-supervised branch classifies native image features and is less affected by the text bias of CLIP. At the optimization level, a gated test-time information-maximization objective pairs per-sample sharpening with batch-level diversity, while an adaptive gate excludes unreliable samples from the gradient. At the prediction level, an online logit adjustment corrects the residual class-distribution skew. CDIM outperforms the compared CLIP-based online TTA baselines on ImageNet-C, CIFAR10-C, and CIFAR100-C, and remains competitive in continual and mixed-domain TTA. Extensive analyses and ablation studies verify the contribution of each of its components. Our code is available at https://github.com/B1ueC1oud/CDIM
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Confidence of incorrect predictions on ImageNet-C (all corruptions, severity 5). CLIP-based entropy minimization (red) assigns high confidence even to incorrect predictions under corruption. CDIM (blue) shifts the confidence of incorrect predictions toward moderate values, which yields a flatter distribution. The corresponding reliability diagram and ECE with 10 equal-width bins are shown in Figure 1(b) .
Figure 2: (a) Left : standard TTA uses a vision-language model (e.g., CLIP) that adapts through entropy minimization on its own predictions. Middle : continual TTA (CTTA) uses a source-pretrained backbone and a moving-average teacher to enforce teacher-student consistency. Right : CDIM adds a frozen self-supervised backbone, in a role similar to that of the teacher in the middle, to support the target CLIP. (b) Reliability diagram with 10 equal-width bins. CLIP+TENT (blue) is severely over-confident (below the y=x line, ECE = 0.400). Adding the DINO v2 ensemble (orange) or GT-IM (green) alone lowers the ECE to 0.210 and 0.101, respectively, and the full CDIM (red) reaches the lowest ECE (0.048).
Method
Gauss.
Shot
Impul.
Defoc.
Glass
Motion
Zoom
Snow
Frost
Fog
Brit.
Contr.
Elast.
Pixel.
JPEG
Mean ↑
ImageNet-C
Zero Shot
11.1
12.5
12.1
23.3
15.3
24.4
22.7
32.4
29.9
35.9
54.1
17.3
12.7
31.0
33.3
24.5
TDA [ 28 ]
12.4
14.8
14.8
23.7
16.7
26.1
24.0
33.5
32.1
38.0
55.3
19.3
14.2
33.5
35.0
26.2
TENT [ 54 ]
5.2
5.7
7.4
25.3
19.3
26.9
24.2
33.5
30.5
37.8
54.3
22.5
13.9
35.1
36.0
25.2
TPT [ 50 ]
8.5
9.4
10.2
24.1
15.1
25.0
24.0
34.0
32.2
37.1
55.5
16.5
13.7
33.9
33.6
24.9
WATT [ 43 ]
11.2
12.8
13.0
25.1
18.1
26.9
25.2
33.4
30.2
37.4
54.0
21.8
15.2
33.5
34.9
26.2
Mint [ 4 ]
19.7
20.4
19.4
26.9
21.5
29.9
26.0
32.7
29.4
38.8
55.1
24.3
19.1
36.4
38.2
29.2
Table 1: Online TTA accuracy (%) with ViT-B/16 at severity 5. Top-1 and Top-2 are shown in bold and underline , respectively.
Table 3: Accuracy (%) under various settings. Default: CLIP ViT-B/16 with DINO v2-base. (a) Auxiliary self-supervised model and (b) DINO v2 scale for each CLIP backbone, on CIFAR10-C. (c) TinyCLIP (ViT-61M/32) on CIFAR10-C. (d) ImageNet variants with CLIP ViT-B/16.
ENS
GT-IM
OLA
ImageNet-C
CIFAR10-C
CIFAR100-C
25.2
61.9
37.0
✓
28.7
63.1
40.0
✓
33.8
76.9
45.2
✓
✓
35.0
78.3
46.2
✓
✓
36.3
79.2
47.5
✓
✓
✓
36.9
79.8
48.2
Table 4: Ablation study on the contributions of CDIM. The first row is the CLIP+TENT.
Figure 3: Three analyses during the CIFAR10-C TTA process, comparing CLIP+TENT and CDIM . (a) Image-text alignment of CLIP, measured as ⟨fimg,ttrue⟩ per batch during TTA. (b) Cumulative prediction frequency per class, with the ground-truth frequency for reference. (c) Marginal entropy H(pˉt) per batch; the dashed line marks logK .
Table 5: Efficiency comparison on CIFAR100-C measured on an NVIDIA V100 GPU.
ENS (w/ DINO)
GT-IM
OLA
ImageNet-C
CIFAR10-C
CIFAR100-C
25.2
61.9
37.0
✓
30.4
64.0
41.2
✓
28.7
63.1
40.0
✓
✓
33.1
66.5
44.5
✓
33.8
76.9
45.2
✓
✓
35.0
78.3
46.2
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation study of OLA. The first row is the CLIP+TENT baseline.
CIFAR10-C (fixed seed: 79.8)
Batch Size
Noise
Blur
Weather
Digital
Avg.
Gauss.
Shot
Impul.
Defoc.
Glass
Motion
Zoom
Snow
Frost
Fog
Brit.
Contr.
Elastic
Pixel
JPEG
20
67.3 (0.6)
70.2 (0.6)
75.5 (0.8)
82.5 (0.4)
68.2 (0.7)
82.7 (0.3)
84.6 (0.7)
85.0 (0.7)
85.1 (0.6)
85.5 (0.8)
91.5 (0.3)
88.1 (0.5)
74.4 (0.5)
79.8 (0.4)
72.1 (1.2)
79.5 (0.2)
50
69.5 (0.6)
71.9 (0.8)
78.1 (0.6)
84.7 (0.5)
70.0 (0.6)
84.2 (0.2)
86.3 (0.1)
87.1 (0.2)
87.3 (0.3)
86.7 (0.4)
93.3 (0.2)
90.0 (0.2)
76.9 (0.5)
81.0 (0.4)
74.2 (0.4)
81.4 (0.1)
100
69.3 (0.4)
72.4 (0.4)
77.9 (0.4)
84.5 (0.2)
69.1 (0.4)
84.2 (0.2)
86.5 (0.2)
87.7 (0.1)
87.5 (0.3)
86.4 (0.4)
93.3 (0.1)
89.2 (0.2)
76.6 (0.3)
80.4 (0.4)
74.7 (0.4)
81.3 (0.2)
200
67.0 (0.3)
70.9 (0.2)
76.4 (0.4)
83.1 (0.2)
66.9 (0.5)
83.0 (0.3)
85.1 (0.1)
86.5 (0.1)
86.7 (0.2)
85.2 (0.2)
92.5 (0.1)
87.0 (0.3)
74.8 (0.1)
78.0 (0.4)
73.3 (0.1)
79.8 (0.1)
Appendix
Table 7: Accuracy (mean (std) %) on OTTA corruption benchmarks with different batch sizes in ViT-B/16.
Variant
Cond.
Marg.
Gate
Ens.
CIFAR10-C
CIFAR100-C
(a) conditional only (= TENT)
✓
61.9
37.0
(b) marginal only
✓
67.9
35.6
(c) both, no gate
✓
✓
74.4
44.0
(d) + gate (full GT-IM)
✓
✓
✓
76.9
45.2
(e) + ensemble
✓
✓
✓
✓
79.2
47.5
Appendix
Table 8: Decomposition of GT-IM on CLIP+TENT. Cond.: conditional-entropy term, Marg.: marginal-entropy term, Gate: adaptive confidence gate, Ens.: DINO v2 logit ensemble. OLA is not used in any row.
Method
CIFAR100-C
ImageNet-C
TENT (CLIP only)
37.0
25.2
TENT + DINO v2 ensemble
40.0
28.7
BATCLIP (CLIP only)
42.2
30.1
BATCLIP + DINO v2 ensemble
44.6
32.6
CDIM (Ours)
48.2
36.9
Appendix
Table 9: Accuracy (%) of TENT and BATCLIP with and without the DINO v2 logit ensemble (default setting: CLIP ViT-B/16 and DINO v2-base).
Dataset
Severity
Noise
Blur
Weather
Digital
Mean ↑
Gauss.
Shot
Impul.
Defoc.
Glass
Motion
Zoom
Snow
Frost
Fog
Brit.
Contr.
Elast.
Pixel.
JPEG
ImageNet-C
Level 1
60.5
60.0
56.9
58.3
58.3
62.2
54.4
57.7
58.7
60.8
66.0
63.4
60.6
62.1
61.3
60.1
Level 2
56.2
55.1
51.8
54.1
53.9
58.0
48.5
49.1
51.0
58.9
65.4
62.5
44.6
60.5
59.1
55.2
Level 3
48.2
47.7
46.9
46.7
41.7
51.2
44.4
50.3
44.8
56.3
63.8
58.9
57.1
56.9
57.1
51.5
Level 4
38.3
35.7
36.9
39.0
35.2
41.9
40.2
44.9
42.8
52.9
61.8
49.9
50.8
49.7
51.5
44.8
Level 5
26.0
27.9
26.7
31.1
30.1
35.9
34.4
42.2
38.3
45.6
59.6
34.1
33.1
45.1
43.8
36.9
Appendix
Table 10: CDIM accuracy (%) across corruption severity levels 1–5 on ImageNet-C, CIFAR10-C, and CIFAR100-C.
Table 11: Sensitivity of CDIM to (a) the EMA momentum α (Eq. ( 9 )) and (b) the discard ratio ρ (Eq. ( 5 )), measured by accuracy (%) on CIFAR10-C, CIFAR100-C, and ImageNet-C. The default values are α=0.9 and ρ=0.05 (rows 0.9 and 0.05). Bold marks the best value in each column.
Figure 5: Visualization of the mean class-wise representation similarity across different corruptions on CIFAR10-C. Darker colors indicate high similarity, meaning that the model extracts consistent features regardless of the corruption type. Lighter colors indicate low similarity, which reveals feature distortion and representation drift caused by the distribution shift.
Figure 6: (a): Class separability sˉwithin−sˉbetween of the per-batch feature matrix, measured on each of the fifteen CIFAR10-C corruption types; higher values indicate better-separated classes. (b): Reliability diagram for CLIP+TENT+OLA ( red ) and CDIM ( purple ). OLA lowers the ECE from 0.400 (CLIP+TENT) to 0.281, but residual overconfidence remains. CDIM, which adds the DINO v2 ensemble and GT-IM, removes most of it and reaches an ECE of 0.048.
Figure 7: t-SNE visualization of CLIP+TENT and CDIM features on CIFAR10-C for all 15 corruption types, together with an overall results (top right).
Dataset
Domain
ZS
TENT
WATT
BATCLIP
CDIM (Ours)
VisDA-C
3D (trainset)
84.4
84.9
85.4
85.3
86.0
YT (valset)
84.5
84.7
84.7
84.9
85.5
OfficeHome
Art
78.3
79.4
80.4
79.9
80.7
Clipart
64.0
63.2
66.9
66.4
68.0
Product
87.1
88.4
87.5
88.5
87.7
Real World
89.0
89.6
90.0
89.7
90.1
Appendix
Table 12: Domain generalization results across VisDA-C, OfficeHome, PACS, and VLCS. We denote Top-1/2 by bold and underline , respectively.
Method
ImageNet-A
ImageNet-V2
ImageNet-R
ImageNet-Sketch
CLIP [ 47 ]
49.2
60.4
72.7
44.9
CLIPArTT [ 1 ]
49.6
60.5
72.8
45.0
TDA [ 28 ]
51.0
61.2
73.9
46.4
TENT [ 54 ]
51.9
61.0
77.0
45.4
ETA [ 40 ]
52.0
61.0
77.4
46.8
Mint [ 4 ]
54.7
62.6
78.1
48.4
Appendix
Table 13: Comparison on ImageNet distribution-shift variants (ImageNet-A, -V2, -R, and -Sketch) with CLIP ViT-B/16.
Method
Noise
Blur
Weather
Digital
Mean ↑
Gauss.
Shot
Impul.
Defoc.
Glass
Motion
Zoom
Snow
Frost
Fog
Brit.
Contr.
Elast.
Pixel.
JPEG
ImageNet-C
TENT [ 54 ]
5.1
0.3
0.2
19.5
16.1
25.9
25.5
32.0
30.5
37.6
52.8
25.6
14.6
35.0
32.2
23.5
CoTTA [ 55 ]
17.6
18.3
18.8
17.9
19.2
16.3
28.7
19.0
16.9
17.5
41.5
24.2
26.4
20.8
25.4
21.9
EATA [ 40 ]
22.8
26.9
27.0
25.7
27.0
30.7
31.6
37.1
37.2
43.3
54.5
33.4
34.6
39.9
39.6
34.1
SAR [ 41 ]
19.5
21.6
18.2
25.3
21.3
32.9
22.8
32.5
28.8
42.4
48.6
28.6
12.5
39.8
37.8
28.8
COME [ 61 ]
22.5
26.8
26.7
24.5
26.2
29.9
31.3
36.5
37.3
43.0
54.0
33.7
35.8
40.4
40.1
33.9
Appendix
Table 14: Continual TTA results with ViT-B/16, including per-corruption accuracy. Top-1 and Top-2 are shown in bold and underline , respectively.
Method
Noise
Blur
Weather
Digital
Mean ↑
Gauss.
Shot
Impul.
Defoc.
Glass
Motion
Zoom
Snow
Frost
Fog
Brit.
Contr.
Elast.
Pixel.
JPEG
ImageNet-C
Zero Shot
11.1
12.5
12.1
23.3
15.3
24.4
22.7
32.4
29.9
35.9
54.1
17.3
12.7
31.0
33.3
24.5
TDA [ 28 ]
12.4
14.8
14.8
23.7
16.7
26.1
24.0
33.5
32.1
38.0
55.3
19.3
14.2
33.5
35.0
26.2
DMN [ 62 ]
11.5
14.1
14.0
22.3
15.8
24.6
22.5
31.5
30.4
35.3
54.2
16.3
12.5
32.5
24.8
24.2
VTE [ 12 ]
9.2
10.8
10.8
24.7
14.4
24.3
25.2
35.4
32.4
38.2
55.5
16.2
14.3
38.7
34.0
25.6
ZERO [ 13 ]
10.5
11.5
11.1
24.8
14.9
24.4
23.3
33.0
30.4
37.1
54.5
16.9
13.4
34.9
32.9
24.9
Appendix
Table 15: Online TTA results with ViT-B/16, including additional baselines. Top-1 and Top-2 are shown in bold and underline , respectively.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) such as CLIP have become a standard backbone for open-vocabulary recognition, yet their zero-shot predictions remain vulnerable to distribution shifts encountered at deployment. Test-Time Adaptation (TTA) has recently been extended to CLIP as a lightweight solution, leading to a rapidly growing body of TTA4CLIP methods. However, empirical progress in this area has largely outpaced our understanding of what truly drives adaptation, where their gains originate, and under which shifts they remain reliable. In this paper, we take a step back from the pursuit of state-of-the-art accuracy and conduct a systematic controlled study of TTA4CLIP. We first organize existing methods into three unified paradigms according to what is updated at test time. We then introduce TTABC, an open-source TTA Benchmark for CLIP, which standardizes evaluation protocols and integrates more than 20 representative methods. Our controlled empirical analysis focuses on three key areas. First, we determine the driving factors in parameter-based methods, revealing that adaptation gains are primarily driven by test-time evidence and reliable proxies rather than heavy optimization. Second, we explore evidence utilization beyond heavy parameter tuning, showing that competitive and efficient performance can be achieved through cross- or current-sample evidence and lightweight prototype updates. Finally, we demonstrate that there is no silver bullet for TTA: no single adaptation paradigm is universally optimal, and the preferred paradigm depends on the nature of shift. We hope our benchmark and study provide a clearer understanding of the current TTA4CLIP landscape and establish a foundation for further research. Benchmark and codes are available at https://github.com/walawalagoose/TTABC.
Jiazhen Huang, Xiao Chen, Zhiming Liu +3
Tsinghua University · Shenzhen Technology University
Large vision-language models (LVLMs) tend to hallucinate, especially when visual inputs are corrupted at test time. We show that such corruptions act as additional distribution shifts, significantly amplifying hallucination rates in real-world applications. To address this, we propose CLIP-guided Test-Time Training (ClipTTT), a method to adapt LVLMs under degraded conditions on the fly with a single test sample. Specifically, we leverage the image-text alignment strength of a pre-trained CLIP model as a stable guidance signal to identify reliable self-supervision targets, enabling rapid adaptation without altering the base LVLMs. Extensive experiments on standard hallucination benchmarks, with 15 common corruptions, demonstrate that ClipTTT effectively mitigates hallucinations and improves descriptive faithfulness under visual corruptions.
Mriganka Nath, Anurag Das, Jiahao Xie +1
Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarland Informatics Campus, Germany
Test-time adaptation (TTA) has emerged as a popular paradigm for improving the performance of vision-language models (e.g., CLIP) on downstream tasks. Among existing CLIP-based TTA methods, Test-Time Prompt Tuning (TPT) is a pioneering work that optimizes textual prompts using multiple test-time augmentations and remains a strong baseline to date. In this work, we revisit TPT and reveal that its optimization can be interpreted as implicitly learning from self-generated pseudo labels. Building on this perspective, we propose a unified self-ensembling framework (USE) that ensures consistency between the optimization and inference stages. During optimization, we introduce a simple yet effective self-ensembling (SE) strategy that emphasizes the test image itself over its augmented views adaptively to obtain more reliable pseudo labels. To fully exploit the potential of augmentations, we further apply the same strategy at inference time, unifying the objectives of both stages. Notably, SE can also act as a lightweight optimization-free TTA method. Extensive experiments across multiple datasets demonstrate that SE and USE outperform their counterparts, respectively. Furthermore, SE yields consistent performance gains when integrated with existing TTA methods. The code is available at https://github.com/sirujiang/USE.
Siru Jiang, Jian Liang, Ran He +1
School of Advanced Interdisciplinary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · NLPR & MAIS, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences +1