PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Demystifying CLIP Data

Hu Xu, Saining Xie, Xiaoqing Tan, Po-Yao Huang, Russell Howes, Vasu Sharma, Shang-Wen Li, Gargi Ghosh, Luke Zettlemoyer, Christoph Feichtenhofer

representation learningmulti-modal pretrainingCLIPimagetext
95.60100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
95.30100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.44)
93.40100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — CLIP data curation and scaling

Abstract

Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) is an approach that has advanced research and applications in computer vision, fueling modern recognition systems and generative models. We believe that the main ingredient to the success of CLIP is its \textit{data} and \textit{not} the \textit{model} architecture or pre-training {objective}. However, CLIP only provides very limited information about its data and how it has been collected, leading to works that aim to reproduce CLIP's data by filtering with its model parameters. In this work, we intend to reveal CLIP's data curation approach and in our pursuit of making it open to the community introduce Metadata-Curated Language-Image Pre-training (MetaCLIP). MetaCLIP takes a raw data pool and metadata (derived from CLIP's concepts) and yields a balanced subset over the metadata distribution. Our experimental study rigorously isolates the model and training settings, concentrating solely on data. MetaCLIP applied to CommonCrawl with 400M image-text data pairs outperforms CLIP's data on multiple standard benchmarks. In zero-shot ImageNet classification, MetaCLIP achieves 70.8\% accuracy, surpassing CLIP's 68.3\% on \mbox{ViT-B} models. Scaling to 1B data, while maintaining the same training budget, attains \textbf{72.4\%}. Our observations hold across various model sizes, exemplified by ViT-H achieving \textbf{80.5\%}, without any bells-and-whistles. Curation code and training data distribution over metadata will be made available.

Author context

Most prolific author: 8 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 38)