Proceedings

StarFT: Robust Fine-tuning of Zero-shot Models via Spuriosity Alignment

Download BibTeX Cite

Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Main Track. Pages 5536-5544.

https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2025/616

Abstract

Learning robust representations from data often requires scale, which has led to the success of recent zero-shot models such as CLIP. However, the obtained robustness can easily be deteriorated when these models are fine-tuned on other downstream tasks (e.g., of smaller scales). Previous works often interpret this phenomenon in the context of domain shift, developing fine-tuning methods that aim to preserve the original domain as much as possible. However, in a different context, fine-tuned models with limited data are also prone to learning features that are spurious to humans, such as background or texture. In this paper, we propose StarFT (Spurious Textual Alignment Regularization), a novel framework for fine-tuning zero-shot models to enhance robustness by preventing them from learning spuriosity. We introduce a regularization that aligns the output distribution for spuriosity-injected labels with the original zero-shot model, ensuring that the model is not induced to extract irrelevant features further from these descriptions. We leverage recent language models to get such spuriosity-injected labels by generating alternative textual descriptions that highlight potentially confounding features. Extensive experiments validate the robust generalization of StarFT and its emerging properties: zero-shot group robustness and improved zero-shot classification. Notably, StarFT boosts both worst-group and average accuracy by 14.30% and 3.02%, respectively, in the Waterbirds group shift scenario, where other robust fine-tuning baselines show even degraded performance.

  1. [Adila et al., 2024] Dyah Adila, Changho Shin, Linrong Cai, and Frederic Sala. Zero-shot robustification of zero-shot models. In ICLR, 2024.
  2. [Andreassen et al., 2021] Anders Andreassen, Yasaman Bahri, Behnam Neyshabur, and Rebecca Roelofs. The evolution of out-of-distribution robustness throughout fine-tuning, 2021.
  3. [Beery et al., 2020] Sara Beery, Elijah Cole, and Arvi Gjoka. The iWildCam 2020 competition dataset, 2020.
  4. [Bommasani et al., 2022] Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hud- son, Ehsan Adeli, et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models, 2022.
  5. [Choi et al., 2024] Caroline Choi, Yoonho Lee, Annie Chen, Allan Zhou, Aditi Raghunathan, and Chelsea Finn. Aut- oFT: Learning an objective for robust fine-tuning, 2024.
  6. [Christie et al., 2018] Gordon Christie, Neil Fendley, James Wilson, and Ryan Mukherjee. Functional map of the world. In CVPR, 2018.
  7. [Coates et al., 2011] Adam Coates, Andrew Ng, and Honglak Lee. An analysis of single-layer networks in unsupervised feature learning. In ICML, 2011.
  8. [Geirhos et al., 2019] Robert Geirhos, Patricia Rubisch, Claudio Michaelis, et al. ImageNet-trained cnns are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness. In ICLR, 2019.
  9. [Geirhos et al., 2020] Robert Geirhos, Jörn-Henrik Jacob- sen, Claudio Michaelis, et al. Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(11):665- 673, 2020.
  10. [Goyal et al., 2023] Sachin Goyal, Ananya Kumar, Sankalp Garg, Zico Kolter, and Aditi Raghunathan. Finetune like you pretrain: Improved finetuning of zero-shot vision models. In CVPR, 2023.
  11. [Grattafiori et al., 2024] Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, et al. The Llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024.
  12. [Hendrycks et al., 2020] Dan Hendrycks, Norman Mu, Ekin D. Cubuk, et al. AugMix: A simple data processing method to improve robustness and uncertainty. In ICLR, 2020.
  13. [Hendrycks et al., 2021a] Dan Hendrycks, Steven Basart, Norman Mu, et al. The many faces of robustness: A criti- cal analysis of out-of-distribution generalization. In ICCV, 2021.
  14. [Hendrycks et al., 2021b] Dan Hendrycks, Kevin Zhao, Steven Basart, Jacob Steinhardt, and Dawn Song. Natu- ral adversarial examples. In CVPR, 2021.
  15. [Jaini et al., 2024] Priyank Jaini, Kevin Clark, and Robert Geirhos. Intriguing properties of generative classifiers. In ICLR, 2024.
  16. [Jia et al., 2021] Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, et al. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In ICML, 2021.
  17. [Kim et al., 2024] Younghyun Kim, Sangwoo Mo, Minkyu Kim, et al. Discovering and mitigating visual biases through keyword explanation. In CVPR, 2024.
  18. [Kingma and Ba, 2017] Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 2017.
  19. [Koh et al., 2021] Pang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Henrik Marklund, et al. WILDS: A benchmark of in-the-wild dis- tribution shifts. In ICML, 2021.
  20. [Krause et al., 2013] Jonathan Krause, Michael Stark, Jia Deng, and Li Fei-Fei. 3d object representations for fine- grained categorization. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, pages 554-561, 2013.
  21. [Krizhevsky, 2009] Alex Krizhevsky. Learning multiple lay- ers of features from tiny images, 2009.
  22. [Kumar et al., 2022] Ananya Kumar, Aditi Raghunathan, Robbie Jones, Tengyu Ma, and Percy Liang. Fine-tuning can distort pretrained features and underperform out-of- distribution. In ICLR, 2022.
  23. [Li et al., 2017] Da Li, Yongxin Yang, Yi-Zhe Song, and Timothy M. Hospedales. Deeper, broader and artier do- main generalization. In ICCV, 2017.
  24. [Li et al., 2018] Xuhong Li, Yves Grandvalet, and Franck Davoine. Explicit inductive bias for transfer learning with convolutional networks. In ICML, 2018.
  25. [Li et al., 2022] Fei-Fei Li, Marco Andreeto, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Pietro Perona. Caltech 101, 2022.
  26. [Lu et al., 2020] Shangyun Lu, Bradley Nott, Aaron Olson, et al. Harder or different? a closer look at distribution shift in dataset reproduction. In ICML Workshop on Un- certainty and Robustness in Deep Learning, 2020.
  27. [Mao et al., 2022a] Xiaofeng Mao, Yuefeng Chen, Xiaojun Jia, Rong Zhang, Hui Xue, and Zhao Li. Context-aware robust fine-tuning. IJCV, 2022.
  28. [Mao et al., 2022b] Xiaofeng Mao, Gege Qi, Yuefeng Chen, et al. Towards robust vision transformer. In NeurIPS, 2022.
  29. [Menon and Vondrick, 2023] Sachit Menon and Carl Von- drick. Visual classification via description from large lan- guage models. In ICLR, 2023.
  30. [Miller et al., 2021] John Miller, Rohan Taori, Aditi Raghu- nathan, et al. Accuracy on the line: On the strong correla- tion between out-of-distribution and in-distribution gener- alization. In ICML, 2021.
  31. [Nam et al., 2024] Giung Nam, Byeongho Heo, and Juho Lee. Lipsum-FT: Robust fine-tuning of zero-shot models using random text guidance. In ICLR, 2024.
  32. [Nilsback and Zisserman, 2008] Maria-Elena Nilsback and Andrew Zisserman. Automated flower classification over a large number of classes. In 2008 Sixth Indian conference on computer vision, graphics & image processing, pages 722-729. IEEE, 2008.
  33. [Nushi et al., 2018] Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar, and Eric Horvitz. Towards accountable AI: Hybrid human-machine analyses for characterizing system failure. In AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, 2018.
  34. [Oh et al., 2024] Changdae Oh, Hyesu Lim, Mijoo Kim, Jaegul Choo, Alexander Hauptmann, Zhi-Qi Cheng, and Kyungwoo Song. Towards calibrated robust fine-tuning of vision-language models, 2024.
  35. [Oikarinen et al., 2023] Tuomas Oikarinen, Subhro Das, Lam M. Nguyen, and Tsui-Wei Weng. Label-free concept bottleneck models. In ICLR, 2023. [OpenAI, 2023] OpenAI. GPT-4 technical report, 2023.
  36. [Paul and Chen, 2021] Sayak Paul and Pin-Yu Chen. Vision transformers are robust learners. In AAAI, 2021.
  37. [Radford et al., 2021] Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In ICML, 2021.
  38. [Recht et al., 2019] Benjamin Recht, Rebecca Roelofs, Lud- wig Schmidt, and Vaishaal Shankar. Do ImageNet classi- fiers generalize to ImageNet? In ICML, 2019.
  39. [Russakovsky et al., 2015] Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, et al. ImageNet large scale visual recognition challenge. IJCV, 2015.
  40. [Sagawa et al., 2020] Shiori Sagawa, Pang Wei Koh, Tat- sunori B Hashimoto, and Percy Liang. Distributionally ro- bust neural networks for group shifts: On the importance of regularization for worst-case generalization. In ICLR, 2020.
  41. [Schuhmann et al., 2021] Christoph Schuhmann, Richard Vencu, Romain Beaumont, et al. LAION-400m: Open dataset of CLIP-filtered 400 million image-text pairs, 2021.
  42. [Selvaraju et al., 2017] Ramprasaath R. Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Grad-CAM: Visual explana- tions from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In ICCV, 2017.
  43. [Shankar et al., 2020] Vaishaal Shankar, Rebecca Roelofs, Horia Mania, Alex Fang, Benjamin Recht, and Ludwig Schmidt. Evaluating machine accuracy on ImageNet. In ICML, 2020.
  44. [Taori et al., 2020] Rohan Taori, Achal Dave, Vaishaal Shankar, et al. Measuring robustness to natural distribu- tion shifts in image classification. In NeurIPS, 2020.
  45. [Tian et al., 2023] Junjiao Tian, Xiaoliang Dai, Chih-Yao Ma, Zecheng He, Yen-Cheng Liu, and Zsolt Kira. Train- able projected gradient method for robust fine-tuning. In CVPR, 2023.
  46. [Torralba and Efros, 2011] Antonio Torralba and Alexei A. Efros. Unbiased look at dataset bias. In CVPR, 2011.
  47. [Touvron et al., 2019] Hugo Touvron, Andrea Vedaldi, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. Fixing the train-test resolution discrepancy. In NeurIPS, 2019.
  48. [Tramèr and Boneh, 2019] Florian Tramèr and Dan Boneh. Adversarial training and robustness for multiple perturba- tions. In NeurIPS, 2019.
  49. [Wang et al., 2019] Haohan Wang, Songwei Ge, Eric P. Xing, and Zachary C. Lipton. Learning robust global representations by penalizing local predictive power. In NeurIPS, 2019.
  50. [Wang et al., 2021] Dequan Wang, Evan Shelhamer, Shaoteng Liu, Bruno Olshausen, and Trevor Darrell. Tent: Fully test-time adaptation by entropy minimization. In ICLR, 2021.
  51. [Wichmann and Geirhos, 2023] Felix A. Wichmann and Robert Geirhos. Are deep neural networks adequate be- havioral models of human visual perception? Annual Re- view of Vision Science, pages 501-524, 2023.
  52. [Wiles et al., 2022] Olivia Wiles, Sven Gowal, Florian Stim- berg, et al. A fine-grained analysis on distribution shift. In ICML, 2022.
  53. [Wortsman et al., 2022] Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Jong Wook Kim, Mike Li, et al. Robust fine-tuning of zero-shot models. In CVPR, 2022.
  54. [Xiao et al., 2021] Kai Xiao, Logan Engstrom, Andrew Ilyas, and Aleksander Madry. Noise or signal: The role of image backgrounds in object recognition. In ICLR, 2021.
  55. [Zhai et al., 2023] Xiaohua Zhai, Basil Mustafa, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Lucas Beyer. Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training. In ICCV, pages 11975-11986, 2023.
  56. [Zhang and Ré, 2022] Michael Zhang and Christopher Ré. Contrastive adapters for foundation model group robust- ness. In NeurIPS, 2022.

References were extracted automatically from the PDF and may contain errors.

Welcome Future Conferences AI Journal Division IJCAI Proceedings About IJCAI IJCAI Awards