Skip to content
Preprint

When does fusing hand-crafted knowledge with learned representations pay? A cost-normalized benchmark of stacking, substitution, and interference

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 53 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

This work benchmarked one fixed hand-crafted knowledge source, a pinned bank of Gabor targets injected only during training at $\sim$2\% overhead, against data-driven alternatives under one frozen recipe with fixed subsets.

Abstract

Fusing prior knowledge with data-driven learning is attractive where data is scarce, yet no controlled account says when it helps, is redundant, or harms. We benchmark one fixed hand-crafted knowledge source, a pinned bank of Gabor targets injected only during training at $\sim$2\% overhead, against data-driven alternatives (SimCLR, SimSiam, DINO, ImageNet transfer, augmentation, learned teachers) under one frozen recipe with fixed subsets: 13 datasets, 9 backbones, 150 to 1.28M images, 32--224\,px, 2.5M--86M parameters ($\computeCells$ classification configurations over $\computeRuns$ runs, plus segmentation and detection transplants). Across the training-time combinations we measure, three outcomes recur (decision-level fusion differs). Different-\emph{currency} sources can stack: the prior composes with DeiT augmentation on attention backbones and is worth $+26$ points to ViT-B/16 at $224$\,px, $+6.7$ at twice that budget. Same-currency sources substitute: against effective self-supervised pretraining, the combination never usefully exceeds the better single source. Fusing at full strength into an already-informed initialization interferes in proportion to what it carries: ImageNet transfer, $-15$ to $-17$ points, removed by a weaker auxiliary weight. Frozen-feature diagnostics measured on each source alone separate these outcomes retrospectively but do not predict them: a rule built on them calls one of nine unseen pairs. At a practitioner's own label budget, the frozen-feature gain predicts the end-to-end gain to within $0.17$ points across 30 cells and seven datasets; the underlying decomposition, $\Delta = G + \readout(\mathrm{base})$, holds in sign on $\auditRate\%$ of testable cells and is called an unseen backbone family's feature gain in advance. The project page is https://amughrabi.github.io/MomentAux.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Adversarially Robust Abductive Fusion of Pre-trained Transformer-based Perception Models

This work frames the fusion of multiple imperfect ViT-based detectors as a consistency-based abduction problem solved at test time by an exact Integer Program (IP) and a polynomial-time heuristic and shows that this metacognitive layer can be learned without any domain knowledge by exploiting vector-space geometry.

Mario A. Leiva, Yue Ma, Qinru Qiu et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

The Blending Ratio Is Not Where the Performance Is: Diagnosing Prototype Blending for Few-Shot Adaptation of Vision-Language Models

Many few-shot adaptation methods for vision-language models classify with a convex combination of the zero-shot text prototype and the mean of the K labelled image features, with a single blending ratio routinely tuned on held-out labels, often on the test set itself. We ask what the family's own bias-variance justification invites: what is the right ratio, can it be estimated without validation data, and is finding it where the performance is? First, the ratio minimising prototype mean-squared error has a closed form whose support-set plug-in is exactly a positive-part James-Stein coefficient shrinking towards the text prototype. Across 4,800 cells (ten datasets, five backbones including SigLIP, five shot counts, five seeds, four prompt tiers) this theoretically optimal ratio is a reliable estimate of the wrong quantity: on the 950 primary-tier cells where it is defined it trails a test-set-oracle ratio by 8.5 points. It saturates near 1, discarding the text prior for a nearest-class-mean classifier, because 78% of the text-image prototype distance it treats as bias is a class-independent offset that the arg max largely cancels. We prove the mechanism and bound its share of the damage at 26% by a counterfactual. Second, leave-one-out on the support set alone sets a ratio landing within 0.9 points of the oracle blend, so it is estimable without validation data. Third, validation-free linear probes beat even the oracle-tuned blend: CLAP by +1.9 points and LP++ by +1.5 on average, and at K>= 4 all four validation-free baselines sit above the oracle, the linear probes by margins excluding zero. These results locate the ceiling in the model class, not the hyperparameter: the ratio can be set near-optimally for free, and it is still not where the performance is. Code, cached features, per-cell records: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Liangzhi-Li/clipbench-blending

Liangzhi Li, Bowen Wang, Yiming Qian et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Where Does Generative Difficulty Reside? An Empirical Study of Target Representations

This work studies raw pixels, SD-VAE latents and DINOv2 as well as MAE representation-autoencoder features within a unified masked autoregressive rectified-flow model and shows that compression, reconstruction fidelity, token dimensionality, and visible semantic clustering do not individually predict generative behavior.

Marcel Plocher, Bernhard Schölkopf, Andreas Geiger et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.