Large foundation models have emerged in the last years and are pushing performance boundaries for a variety of tasks. Training or even finetuning such models demands vast datasets and computational resources, which are often scarce and costly. Adaptation methods provide a computationally efficient solution to address these limitations by allowing such models to be finetuned on small amounts of data and computing power. This is achieved by appending new trainable modules to frozen backbones with only a fraction of the trainable parameters and fitting only these modules on novel tasks. Recently, the VeRA adapter was shown to excel in parameter-efficient adaptations by utilizing a pair of frozen random low-rank matrices shared across all layers. In this paper, we propose PVeRA, a probabilistic version of the VeRA adapter, which modifies the low-rank matrices of VeRA in a probabilistic manner. This modification naturally allows handling inherent ambiguities in the input and allows for different sampling configurations during training and testing. A comprehensive evaluation was performed on the VTAB-1k benchmark and seven adapters, with PVeRA outperforming VeRA and other adapters. Our code for training models with PVeRA and benchmarking all adapters is available here.

Progress in a research field can be hard to assess, in particular when many concurrent methods are proposed in a short period of time. This is the case in digital pathology, where many foundation models have been released recently to serve as feature extractors for tile-level images, being used in a variety of downstream tasks, both for tile- and slide-level problems. Benchmarking available methods then becomes paramount to get a clearer view of the research landscape. In particular, in critical domains such as healthcare, a benchmark should not only focus on evaluating downstream performance, but also provide insights about the main differences between methods, and importantly, further consider uncertainty and robustness to ensure a reliable usage of proposed models. For these reasons, we introduce THUNDER, a tile-level benchmark for digital pathology foundation models, allowing for efficient comparison of many models on diverse datasets with a series of downstream tasks, studying their feature spaces and assessing the robustness and uncertainty of predictions informed by their embeddings. THUNDER is a fast, easy-to-use, dynamic benchmark that can already support a large variety of state-of-the-art foundation, as well as local user-defined models for direct tile-based comparison. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive comparison of 23 foundation models on 16 different datasets covering diverse tasks, feature analysis, and robustness. The code for THUNDER is publicly available at https://github.com/MICS-Lab/thunder.