Renaissance: Investigating the Pretraining of Vision-Language Encoders

Clayton Fields, Casey Kennington · Nov 11, 2024 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

In the past several years there has been an explosion of available models for vision-language (VL) tasks. Unfortunately, the literature still leaves open a number of questions related to best practices in designing and training such models. Additionally, the limited programming tools available for modeling make conducting VL research more difficult than necessary. In this paper, we seek to answer several questions related to the pretraining of VL encoders through meta-analysis. To conduct these experiments, we introduce a VL evaluation framework called Renaissance. In our first set of experiments, we show that we can save significant compute at little to no cost to downstream performance, by freezing large parts of VL models during pretraining. In our second set of experiments, we examine the effect of basing a VL transformer on a vision model versus a text model. Renaissance offers a great deal of flexibility in creating, training and evaluating transformer encoders for VL modeling. Its source code will be made publicly available upon publication. The source code for Renaissance can be found at https://github.com/bsu-slim/renaissance.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.