PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

TiC-CLIP: Continual Training of CLIP Models

Saurabh Garg, Mehrdad Farajtabar, Hadi Pouransari, Raviteja Vemulapalli, Sachin Mehta, Oncel Tuzel, Vaishaal Shankar, Fartash Faghri

datasets & benchmarksCLIPContinual learningdistribution shiftbenchmark
60.80100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.31)
56.00100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)
56.20100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±23 pct pts (from σ = 0.46)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

Abstract

Keeping large foundation models up to date on latest data is inherently expensive. To avoid the prohibitive costs of constantly retraining, it is imperative to continually train these models. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of any large scale continual learning benchmarks or baselines. We introduce the first set of web-scale Time-Continual (TiC) benchmarks for training vision-language models: TiC-DataComp, TiC-YFCC, and TiC-Redcaps. TiC-DataComp, our largest dataset, contains over 12.7B timestamped image-text pairs spanning 9 years (2014-2022). We first use our benchmarks to curate various dynamic evaluations to measure temporal robustness of existing models. We show OpenAI's CLIP (trained on data up to 2020) loses $\approx 8\%$ zero-shot accuracy on our curated retrieval task from 2021-2022 compared with more recently trained models in OpenCLIP repository. We then study how to efficiently train models on time-continuous data. We demonstrate that a simple rehearsal-based approach that continues training from the last checkpoint and replays old data reduces compute by $2.5\times$ when compared to the standard practice of retraining from scratch. Code is available at https://github.com/apple/ml-tic-clip.

Author context

Most prolific author: 5 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 = 36)