Syllabus Map

• Study map: Syllabus Study Map

Overview

• Vision-text encoders map images and text into a shared space.
• Goal: make semantically matching image-text pairs close, and mismatched pairs far apart.
• Main use cases: zero-shot classification, cross-modal retrieval, and multimodal search.

Core Idea

• Train with paired image-text data.
• Use contrastive objectives to align modalities.
• Typical architecture is a dual encoder:
• Image encoder $f_\theta(\cdot)$ maps image $I$ to vector $v$.
• Text encoder $g_\phi(\cdot)$ maps caption/prompt $T$ to vector $t$.
• Embeddings are L2-normalized before similarity scoring.

• Similarity is scaled cosine similarity:

• $s_{ij}$ is similarity between image $i$ and text $j$, and $\tau$ is a learnable temperature scale.

Contrastive Training Objective

• For a batch of $N$ paired examples, compute the similarity matrix $S \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$.
• Use symmetric InfoNCE loss: image-to-text and text-to-image.

• The diagonal terms $s_{ii}$ are matched pairs; off-diagonals are in-batch negatives.

Example Models

• CLIP: ViT/ResNet image encoder + Transformer text encoder; trained on large noisy web image-text pairs.
• OpenCLIP: open-source CLIP reproductions trained on LAION-scale datasets.
• ALIGN: large-scale weakly supervised contrastive image-text pretraining.

CLIP Step-by-Step

Training

Step 1: Build paired mini-batch

• Sample a batch of $N$ image-caption pairs $(I_i, T_i)$.
• Each pair is treated as a positive match.

Step 2: Encode image and text

• Compute image embeddings with vision encoder.
• Compute text embeddings with text encoder.
• L2-normalize both embeddings.

Step 3: Compute similarity matrix

• Compute all pairwise similarities between image and text embeddings in the batch.

Step 4: Compute symmetric contrastive loss

• Optimize image-to-text and text-to-image objectives jointly.
• Positive pairs are diagonal entries $S_{ii}$; others are negatives.

Step 5: Update both encoders

• Backpropagate total contrastive loss.
• Update vision encoder, text encoder, and temperature parameter.

Inference

Step 1: Prepare class prompts or queries

• For zero-shot classification, create a text prompt per class.
• For retrieval, use arbitrary text/image queries.

Step 2: Encode once, compare many

• Encode query image/text.
• Encode candidate texts/images and cache embeddings.

Step 3: Rank by cosine similarity

• Compute similarity and rank candidates.
• Pick top class (classification) or top-$k$ results (retrieval).

Step 4: Optional prompt ensembling

• Use multiple templates per class and average embeddings.
• Improves robustness to wording choices.

Inference Patterns

Zero-Shot Classification

• Create text prompts per class (for example, “a photo of a {class}”).
• Encode image once and all prompts once.
• Choose class with highest image-text similarity.

Image-to-Text Retrieval

• Encode all candidate captions/documents.
• Retrieve top-$k$ texts by similarity to image embedding.

Text-to-Image Retrieval

• Encode all candidate images.
• Retrieve top-$k$ images by similarity to text embedding.

Practical Notes

Common Uses

• Enables zero-shot classification.
• Useful for retrieval and captioning pipelines.

Prompting and Retrieval

• Prompt engineering matters: template choice can change zero-shot accuracy.
• Multiple prompt ensembling (average class prompt embeddings) often improves results.
• For retrieval at scale, index normalized embeddings with ANN search (for example, FAISS/HNSW).

Metrics

• Zero-shot classification: top-1/top-5 accuracy.
• Retrieval: Recall@K and mean reciprocal rank.

Limitations

• Sensitive to web-data bias and prompt wording.
• Struggles with fine-grained counting or OCR-heavy scenes without task adaptation.