Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, Ilya Sutskever
State-of-the-art computer vision systems are trained to predict a fixed set of predetermined object categories. This restricted form of supervision limits their generality and usability since additional labeled data is needed to specify any other visual concept. Learning directly from raw text about images is a promising alternative which leverages a much broader source of supervision. We demonstrate that the simple pre-training task of predicting which caption goes with which image is an efficient and scalable way to learn SOTA image representations from scratch on a dataset of 400 million (image, text) pairs collected from the internet. After pre-training, natural language is used to reference learned visual concepts (or describe new ones) enabling zero-shot transfer of the model to downstream tasks. We study the performance of this approach by benchmarking on over 30 different existing computer vision datasets, spanning tasks such as OCR, action recognition in videos, geo-localization, and many types of fine-grained object classification. The model transfers non-trivially to most tasks and is often competitive with a fully supervised baseline without the need for any dataset specific training. For instance, we match the accuracy of the original ResNet-50 on ImageNet zero-shot without needing to use any of the 1.28 million training examples it was trained on. We release our code and pre-trained model weights at https://github.com/OpenAI/CLIP.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero-Shot Learning | VOC-MLT | Average mAP | 84.3 | CLIP(ResNet-50) |
| Zero-Shot Learning | VOC-MLT | Average mAP | 85.77 | CLIP(ViT-B/16) |
| Zero-Shot Learning | COCO-MLT | Average mAP | 56.19 | ResNet-50 |
| Zero-Shot Learning | COCO-MLT | Average mAP | 60.17 | ViT-B/16 |
| Activity Recognition | RareAct | mWAP | 40.7 | CLIP |
| Image Retrieval with Multi-Modal Query | Flickr30k | Image-to-text R@1 | 88 | CLIP |
| Image Retrieval with Multi-Modal Query | Flickr30k | Image-to-text R@10 | 99.4 | CLIP |
| Image Retrieval with Multi-Modal Query | Flickr30k | Image-to-text R@5 | 98.7 | CLIP |
| Image Retrieval with Multi-Modal Query | Flickr30k | Text-to-image R@1 | 68.7 | CLIP |
| Image Retrieval with Multi-Modal Query | Flickr30k | Text-to-image R@10 | 95.2 | CLIP |
| Image Retrieval with Multi-Modal Query | Flickr30k | Text-to-image R@5 | 90.6 | CLIP |
| Image Retrieval with Multi-Modal Query | COCO 2014 | Image-to-text R@1 | 58.4 | CLIP |
| Image Retrieval with Multi-Modal Query | COCO 2014 | Image-to-text R@10 | 88.1 | CLIP |
| Image Retrieval with Multi-Modal Query | COCO 2014 | Image-to-text R@5 | 81.5 | CLIP |
| Image Retrieval with Multi-Modal Query | COCO 2014 | Text-to-image R@1 | 37.8 | CLIP |
| Image Retrieval with Multi-Modal Query | COCO 2014 | Text-to-image R@10 | 72.2 | CLIP |
| Image Retrieval with Multi-Modal Query | COCO 2014 | Text-to-image R@5 | 62.4 | CLIP |
| Object Detection | OVAD-Box benchmark | mean average precision | 16.6 | CLIP VIT-B16 |
| Image Classification | OmniBenchmark | Average Top-1 Accuracy | 42.1 | CLIP-RN50 |
| Image Classification | ObjectNet | Top-1 Accuracy | 72.3 | CLIP |
| Image Classification | COCO-MLT | Average mAP | 60.17 | CLIP(ViT-B/16) |
| Image Classification | COCO-MLT | Average mAP | 56.19 | CLIP(ResNet-50) |
| Image Classification | VOC-MLT | Average mAP | 85.77 | CLIP(ViT-B/16) |
| Image Classification | VOC-MLT | Average mAP | 84.3 | CLIP(ResNet-50) |
| 3D | OVAD-Box benchmark | mean average precision | 16.6 | CLIP VIT-B16 |
| Action Recognition | RareAct | mWAP | 40.7 | CLIP |
| Object Recognition | shape bias | shape bias | 79.9 | CLIP (ViT-B) |
| Few-Shot Image Classification | COCO-MLT | Average mAP | 60.17 | CLIP(ViT-B/16) |
| Few-Shot Image Classification | COCO-MLT | Average mAP | 56.19 | CLIP(ResNet-50) |
| Few-Shot Image Classification | VOC-MLT | Average mAP | 85.77 | CLIP(ViT-B/16) |
| Few-Shot Image Classification | VOC-MLT | Average mAP | 84.3 | CLIP(ResNet-50) |
| Meme Classification | Hateful Memes | ROC-AUC | 0.661 | CLIP (zero-shot) |
| Meme Classification | MultiOFF | Accuracy | 62.4 | CLIP |
| Meme Classification | MultiOFF | F1 | 48.1 | CLIP |
| Meme Classification | Harm-P | Accuracy | 80.6 | CLIP |
| Meme Classification | Harm-P | F1 | 80.3 | CLIP |
| Meme Classification | PrideMM | Accuracy | 72.4 | CLIP (fine-tuned) |
| Meme Classification | PrideMM | F1 | 72.3 | CLIP (fine-tuned) |
| Generalized Few-Shot Classification | COCO-MLT | Average mAP | 60.17 | CLIP(ViT-B/16) |
| Generalized Few-Shot Classification | COCO-MLT | Average mAP | 56.19 | CLIP(ResNet-50) |
| Generalized Few-Shot Classification | VOC-MLT | Average mAP | 85.77 | CLIP(ViT-B/16) |
| Generalized Few-Shot Classification | VOC-MLT | Average mAP | 84.3 | CLIP(ResNet-50) |
| Long-tail Learning | COCO-MLT | Average mAP | 60.17 | CLIP(ViT-B/16) |
| Long-tail Learning | COCO-MLT | Average mAP | 56.19 | CLIP(ResNet-50) |
| Long-tail Learning | VOC-MLT | Average mAP | 85.77 | CLIP(ViT-B/16) |
| Long-tail Learning | VOC-MLT | Average mAP | 84.3 | CLIP(ResNet-50) |
| Generalized Few-Shot Learning | COCO-MLT | Average mAP | 60.17 | CLIP(ViT-B/16) |
| Generalized Few-Shot Learning | COCO-MLT | Average mAP | 56.19 | CLIP(ResNet-50) |
| Generalized Few-Shot Learning | VOC-MLT | Average mAP | 85.77 | CLIP(ViT-B/16) |
| Generalized Few-Shot Learning | VOC-MLT | Average mAP | 84.3 | CLIP(ResNet-50) |
| Zero-Shot Transfer Image Classification | ImageNet V2 | Accuracy (Private) | 70.1 | CLIP |
| Zero-Shot Transfer Image Classification | ImageNet-A | Accuracy (Private) | 77.2 | CLIP |
| Zero-Shot Transfer Image Classification | ImageNet | Accuracy (Private) | 76.2 | CLIP(ViT-L/14-336px) |
| Zero-Shot Transfer Image Classification | ImageNet | Accuracy (Private) | 59.6 | CLIP (ResNet50) |
| Zero-Shot Transfer Image Classification | ImageNet | Accuracy (Public) | 31.3 | CLIP |
| Zero-Shot Transfer Image Classification | ImageNet-R | Accuracy | 88.9 | CLIP |
| Zero-Shot Transfer Image Classification | SUN | Accuracy | 58.5 | CLIP |
| Zero-Shot Transfer Image Classification | ObjectNet | Accuracy (Private) | 72.3 | CLIP |
| Zero-Shot Transfer Image Classification | aYahoo | Accuracy | 98.4 | CLIP |
| 2D Classification | OVAD-Box benchmark | mean average precision | 16.6 | CLIP VIT-B16 |
| 2D Object Detection | OVAD-Box benchmark | mean average precision | 16.6 | CLIP VIT-B16 |
| Object Categorization | GRIT | Categorization (ablation) | 48.1 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | ImageNet-R | Top-1 accuracy % | 73.96 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | Stanford Cars | Harmonic mean | 68.65 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | Oxford 102 Flower | Harmonic mean | 74.83 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | EuroSAT | Harmonic mean | 60.03 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | Oxford-IIIT Pet Dataset | Harmonic mean | 94.12 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | ImageNet-S | Top-1 accuracy % | 46.15 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | DTD | Harmonic mean | 56.37 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | UCF101 | Harmonic mean | 73.85 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | Caltech-101 | Harmonic mean | 95.4 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | ImageNet | Harmonic mean | 70.22 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | FGVC-Aircraft | Harmonic mean | 31.09 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | SUN397 | Harmonic mean | 72.23 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | ImageNet-A | Top-1 accuracy % | 47.77 | CLIP |
| Prompt Engineering | ImageNet V2 | Top-1 accuracy % | 60.83 | CLIP |
| Open Vocabulary Object Detection | OVAD-Box benchmark | mean average precision | 16.6 | CLIP VIT-B16 |
| Image-to-Text Retrieval | COCO (Common Objects in Context) | Recall@1 | 58.4 | CLIP (zero-shot) |
| Image-to-Text Retrieval | COCO (Common Objects in Context) | Recall@10 | 88.1 | CLIP (zero-shot) |
| Image-to-Text Retrieval | COCO (Common Objects in Context) | Recall@5 | 81.5 | CLIP (zero-shot) |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | ICFG-PEDES | Rank 1 | 55.25 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | ICFG-PEDES | Rank-10 | 81.32 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | ICFG-PEDES | Rank-5 | 74.76 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | ICFG-PEDES | mAP | 31.09 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | ICFG-PEDES | mINP | 4.94 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | RSTPReid | Rank 1 | 54.45 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | RSTPReid | Rank 10 | 86.7 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | RSTPReid | Rank 5 | 77.8 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | RSTPReid | mAP | 42.58 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | RSTPReid | mINP | 21.38 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | CUHK-PEDES | Rank 10 | 90.89 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | CUHK-PEDES | Rank-1 | 66.41 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | CUHK-PEDES | Rank-5 | 85.15 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | CUHK-PEDES | mAP | 59.36 | CLIP-C |
| Text-based Person Retrieval with Noisy Correspondence | CUHK-PEDES | mINP | 43.02 | CLIP-C |
| 16k | OVAD-Box benchmark | mean average precision | 16.6 | CLIP VIT-B16 |