Zero-Shot Foundation Models

• Zero-shot foundation models are large pretrained systems that use task-agnostic objectives to transfer knowledge directly to unseen tasks.
• They leverage massive, heterogeneous pretraining data to operate across diverse modalities such as vision, language, genomics, and robotics.
• Key strategies like semantic alignment, prompt engineering, and adapter modules help mitigate performance variations and domain gaps.

Zero-shot foundation models (FMs) are large pretrained systems that demonstrate the capability to perform novel downstream tasks with no task-specific fine-tuning—often operating across diverse input modalities and domains. This paradigm exploits massive, heterogeneous pretraining data with task-agnostic objectives, enabling direct transfer to unseen tasks in a “zero-shot” regime. The resulting models have catalyzed research in computer vision, natural language processing, time series, genomics, medical imaging, robotics, data management, tabular analytics, IoT sensing, and beyond. While remarkable progress has been made, quantitative and methodological studies expose significant variations in performance, calibration, robustness, and efficiency across contexts and domains.

1. Architectural Principles and Pretraining at Scale

Zero-shot transfer in foundation models is made possible by pretraining at scale on large, heterogeneously sourced corpora under unified, task-agnostic objectives. In vision-language, models such as CLIP and its derivatives are pretrained on hundreds of millions to billions of image-text pairs via contrastive language–image matching (Pathak et al., 6 Feb 2025). In language, LLMs rely on next-word prediction over terascale corpora. For tabular data, models like TabPFN use billions of synthetic problems to learn Bayesian-posterior inference via a performer backbone (Bansal et al., 30 Nov 2025). In time series, models like Chronos and TimesFM are exposed to multi-domain, multi-scale temporal data using causal transformer architectures (Toner et al., 18 Feb 2025, Ning et al., 6 Mar 2025).

Domain-specific FMs for single-cell genomics, medical imaging, or geospatial AI may introduce tailored masking, representation, or alignment schemes—e.g., single-cell transformers with gene/token-level masking, 3D CNNs for volumetric images, or multimodal sensor fusion (Maleki et al., 18 Dec 2024, Chattopadhyay et al., 28 Mar 2025, Mai et al., 2023, Xue et al., 29 Jul 2024). Task-agnostic pretraining is essential to enable generalization, with the explicit intent that fine-tuning is not required to instantiate new tasks.

2. Methodologies for Zero-Shot Transfer and Prompting

Zero-shot foundation models operate by leveraging frozen (unchanged) parameters, applying either:

• Natural language prompting: For LLMs and vision-LLMs, tasks are cast as instructions or queries, sometimes using template engineering (“a photo of a [CLASS]”, or English instructions for data wrangling tasks) (Narayan et al., 2022, Pathak et al., 6 Feb 2025).
• Semantic alignment: In IoT, tabular, or medical domains, embeddings of input signals (e.g., WiFi, IMU, time series, tabular rows) are mapped to a shared space with semantic or textual prototypes from a foundation model encoder (Xue et al., 29 Jul 2024, Bansal et al., 30 Nov 2025).
• Retrieval augmentation: In time series, retrieval-augmented schemes (e.g., TS-RAG) fetch relevant examples from external databases to support or modulate the zero-shot forecast (Ning et al., 6 Mar 2025).
• Contrastive or cross-modal loss: Embedding similarity (dot-product or cosine) is exploited for probabilistic output or retrieval tasks, especially in vision-language or multi-view learning (Alfassy et al., 2022, Pathak et al., 6 Feb 2025).
• Hybrid and adapter strategies: Adapters (low-rank or bottleneck modules), learnable prompts, and lightweight conditioning layers may be introduced to support efficient generalization or minimal adaptation (e.g., Domino in vision, scDCA in single-cell transformers) (Kaplan et al., 3 Jul 2024, Maleki et al., 18 Dec 2024).

Prompt design is both a central opportunity and a technical challenge: prompt variants may induce large swings in zero-shot accuracy, especially in data cleaning or management tasks (Narayan et al., 2022).

3. Quantitative Performance and Limitations Across Domains

Comprehensive benchmarks reveal nuanced behavior of zero-shot FMs:

Domain/Task	Out-of-domain/zero-shot FM vs. task-specific models	Key observations
Vision-language classif.	Robust in high-res, accuracy can sharply degrade at low-res. Larger models are more robust.	Weighted Aggregated Robustness (WAR) captures these trends (Pathak et al., 6 Feb 2025).
Tabular data (classification)	No training needed; accuracy close to GBDTs; hardware cost is 2–4 orders of magnitude higher.	Tree ensembles (XGBoost, LightGBM) Pareto-optimal in latency/accuracy (Bansal et al., 30 Nov 2025).
Time series (cloud demand)	Simple baselines outperform zero-shot FMs; FM inductive bias mismatches with spiky/non-Gaussian data.	Erratic, context-sensitive behavior; weak in new domains (Toner et al., 18 Feb 2025).
Time series (RAG)	Retrieval-augmented FM (TS-RAG) raises accuracy, particularly in highly nonstationary data.	Up to 6.8% MSE reduction (Ning et al., 6 Mar 2025).
Data cleaning/integration	GPT-3 zero-shot matches or outperforms rule-based or lightly-trained specialized models on some tasks.	Zero-shot is competitive in imputation, weaker in schema matching or transformation (Narayan et al., 2022).
3D Medical image segmentation	Promptable/text-prompted FMs (e.g., SAT) close most of the domain gap (5–10 DSC points vs. nnUNet specialist).	Text+spatial prompting is most robust (Chattopadhyay et al., 28 Mar 2025).
Single-cell perturbation	Adapter-based fine-tuning enables zero-shot to unseen cell lines (R² +0.31 vs full FT); best overall (Maleki et al., 18 Dec 2024).	Frozen large model with <1% parameters trained.
Bioacoustics	Merging domain-tuned model with base LM recovers instruction-following and boosts zero-shot F₁ 211%.	Demonstrates trade-off between expertise retention and generalization (Marincione et al., 7 Nov 2025).
IoT sensing	Joint semantic alignment (CLIP text) and data augmentation achieves superior open-set, GZSL accuracy.	Cross-attention of soft/hard prompts critical (Xue et al., 29 Jul 2024).
Robotics	Modular VLM pipelines: ~19% macro-accuracy for complex zero-shot grounding; multimodal LLM: >70–80%.	End-to-end VLAs poor unless few-shot adapted (Sui et al., 21 May 2025).

Overall, in narrow or highly structured domains, specialized or adapted FMs retain an edge. In cross-modal transfer, heavy pretraining and semantic alignment are crucial. Naive zero-shot use often incurs significant performance loss without explicit adaptation or domain-aware prompting.

4. Domain Generalization, Prompting, and Robustness

Zero-shot FMs are often exposed to pronounced domain shifts (e.g., weather/lighting in images, MR/CT in medical segmentation, spiky event patterns in time series). Several strategies emerge:

• Promptable models: Text- and point-prompting in segmentation narrows cross-modality gaps; learnable prompt vectors and hybrid spatial–semantic prompts are future directions (Chattopadhyay et al., 28 Mar 2025).
• Domain-adaptive normalization: Domino layers in vision FMs (modulation via CLIP-extracted domain embeddings) significantly improve zero-shot robustness under shift (Fog/Night/Snow: mIoU% +3.93) (Kaplan et al., 3 Jul 2024).
• Synthetic augmentation: Mixing synthetic and real context during fine-tuning generally improves zero-shot transfer, up to an optimal blend (Kaplan et al., 3 Jul 2024).
• Low-res adaptation: Adding per-layer LR tokens and pseudo-distillation (LR-TK0) restores up to 30% of lost zero-shot accuracy at 16×16 resolution (Pathak et al., 6 Feb 2025).
• Calibration under data scarcity: Time series FMs permit maximum allocation to conformal calibration; coverage and interval width are maintained even with short sequences (Achour et al., 9 Jul 2025).

Efficient, learnable prompting and domain-aware modulation are active research frontiers for robust generalization.

5. Interpretability, Trade-Offs, and Efficiency

Zero-shot foundation models expose new interpretability, efficiency, and risk trade-offs:

• Interpretability: Retrieval-Augmented Generation in time series (TS-RAG) exposes gating weights that reveal which historical analogs dominate each forecast (Ning et al., 6 Mar 2025).
• Hardware/latency: For tabular classification, tree ensembles complete in ≤0.4 s and ≤150 MB RAM (0 VRAM); TabPFN and TabICL require 2–4 GB or 8+ GB VRAM and are ×10³–10⁴ slower (Bansal et al., 30 Nov 2025).
• Instruction adherence: Bioacoustic FMs after LoRA tuning “forget” multi-instruction prompts; merging with base LM recovers follow-through with minimal expertise loss (Marincione et al., 7 Nov 2025).
• Robustness costs: Fine-tuning or increasing native input resolution can decrease robustness to distribution shift (e.g., pixelation, weather) (Pathak et al., 6 Feb 2025, Kaplan et al., 3 Jul 2024).
• Additivity and privacy: In clinical survival modeling, zero-shot embeddings from fixed FMs permit privacy-preserving, modular fusion (PCA+CoxPH), with additive C-index gains when stacking uncoupled modalities (Song et al., 12 May 2025). No model sees TCGA data at training time.

A plausible implication is that for resource-constrained or real-time settings, hybrid approaches using FMs as feature extractors (rather than direct predictors) may offer the best cost/benefit trade-off.

6. Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions

Several technical and scientific challenges remain in realizing the universal potential of zero-shot foundation models:

• Multimodal learning: Geospatial, clinical, bioacoustic, and IoT tasks often require coupled reasoning over multiple, weakly-aligned modalities; open problems include large-scale supervised corpora and robust alignment (Mai et al., 2023, Chattopadhyay et al., 28 Mar 2025, Xue et al., 29 Jul 2024).
• Prompt optimization: Small changes in prompt wording or format can lead to large accuracy shifts; automated or learnable prompt engineering is a priority (Narayan et al., 2022, Chattopadhyay et al., 28 Mar 2025).
• Robustness and fairness: Models are sensitive to OOD perturbations (low res, rare dynamics, spikes, adverse conditions); architectural and data diversification, as well as dynamic adaptation/regularization, are under investigation (Pathak et al., 6 Feb 2025, Toner et al., 18 Feb 2025, Achour et al., 9 Jul 2025).
• Domain adaptation with minimal labels: Adapter modules (LoRA, Domino, scDCA), semi-supervised fine-tuning, and in-domain data augmentation mitigate overfitting and catastrophic forgetting in transfer (Maleki et al., 18 Dec 2024, Kaplan et al., 3 Jul 2024, Marincione et al., 7 Nov 2025).
• Evaluation protocols and benchmarking: Open datasets, hardware-cost reporting, and quantitative error analysis are essential for progress (Bansal et al., 30 Nov 2025, Pathak et al., 6 Feb 2025).

Risks include hallucination (e.g., clinical summary errors shown not to materially affect outcomes for survival analysis (Song et al., 12 May 2025)), and performance brittleness in edge cases. Ongoing work is focused on federated, privacy-aware training, end-to-end differentiable model fusion, and the development of interpretability and confidence estimation tools.

7. Application-Specific Perspectives

Zero-shot foundation models have advanced numerous application domains:

• Data wrangling: English-language prompts combine with GPT-3 to perform entity matching, transformation, and imputation at or above the level of supervised rules or early neural architectures (Narayan et al., 2022).
• IoT and edge sensing: Alignment of sensor embeddings with language prototypes using cross-attention of soft/hard prompts combined with GAN-augmented data achieves superior open-set and GZSL accuracy (Xue et al., 29 Jul 2024).
• Robotics and embodied AI: Modular LLM-driven agents surpass VLM pipelines in zero-shot complex instruction grounding (macro-accuracy 0.75–0.85 vs. 0.19), but are more costly; fully end-to-end VLA models require extensive adaptation to generalize (Sui et al., 21 May 2025).

A plausible implication is that modular and pipeline architectures, which exploit pretrained FMs as semantic bridges, will continue to dominate zero-shot and few-shot applications until end-to-end FMs reliably achieve the same flexibility and accuracy with limited adaptation.

---

In summary, zero-shot foundation models directly instantiate a universal, frozen inference paradigm across domains and modalities, with task-agnostic supervision at unprecedented scale. However, their quantitative performance, robustness, calibration, and efficiency vary widely by domain, architecture, and pretraining corpus. The state of the art incorporates adapter strategies, retrieval augmentation, semantic/prompt alignment, and hybrid modular workflows to close performance and generalization gaps. Research continues on scaling, prompt and modality optimization, interpretability, and hardware-accuracy trade-offs.