GW6 Small-Head Attention Sweep: Train-MSE, LPIPS, and CLIP

Frozen GW: gw6_imagenet_16h_plus96h_small_1gpu_sonar_m1_c16_v2p5_s24. Evaluated 256 ImageNet-val samples over 6 trained attention models. Lower LPIPS is better; higher CLIP caption-image cosine is better.

Direct BGE to RepTok

LPIPS0.63820
CLIP0.32466

Equal fusion baseline

LPIPS0.63988
CLIP0.32596

Best by LPIPS

confighs16_nh16_lr0p0003
LPIPS0.63790
CLIP0.32693

Best by CLIP

confighs8_nh16_lr0p0003
CLIP0.32722
LPIPS0.63881

Methodological Note

This page is an exploratory sweep over attention-module hyperparameters. I trained the full grid over number of heads, head size, and learning rate, using the frozen GW model. The attention modules were optimized only for normalized RepTok latent MSE; LPIPS and CLIP are measured afterward as downstream diagnostics of image quality and caption-image alignment.

There is a double-dipping risk if we simply keep the attention run with the best LPIPS or CLIP score on this page: we would be selecting a model based on the same readout used to evaluate it, and a partly random advantage could be mistaken for a stable rule. The safer interpretation is to use this grid to understand how attention capacity and optimization settings affect the downstream metrics, not to claim a final best model.

A cleaner final protocol would choose the attention configuration from a predeclared proxy, for example a latent metric or scalar-grid objective that was previously associated with better LPIPS or CLIP, or from a separate validation split. The final result should then be evaluated once on held-out tasks, ideally across the full radar plot rather than only BGE-to-RepTok. This page is therefore a preliminary tool for deciding what attention settings are worth testing next.

Ranking Diagnostics

Each point is one trained attention module. The plot asks whether attention settings that improve image realism under LPIPS also improve text-image alignment under CLIP. Equal fusion is shown as the baseline; the best LPIPS and best CLIP models are highlighted.

LPIPS and CLIP improvement ranking plot

Direct vs Grounded Baselines

direct baseline and grounded attention comparison

Per-Image CLIP vs LPIPS

per-image CLIP versus LPIPS scatter

Attention Learning Curves

attention learning curves

Qualitative Comparison

This grid compares equal fusion, the best LPIPS attention model, and the best CLIP attention model. The visual differences are modest overall. Some individual samples look better under the CLIP-selected model, while others favor the LPIPS-selected model, so this qualitative panel should be read as a sanity check rather than a decisive ranking.

attention qualitative grid

Raw CSV: all_attention_lpips_clip.csv. Per-image CSV: per_image_clip_lpips.csv. Summary JSON: summary.json.