Papers
arxiv:2611.17334

Unbundling Multimodal Vision Encoding

Published on Nov 12
· Submitted by
Ellis Brown
on Nov 13
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

Controlled experiments show that multimodal language models do not need a pretrained vision encoder, but benefit from dedicated vision capacity trained jointly with the backbone and integrated early rather than before fusion.

How multimodal language models should encode visual input remains up for debate. Most models use a pretrained vision encoder, while some recent recipes train the encoder from scratch with the language model or remove it entirely. Vision encoders bundle together three design choices: a visual prior from upstream pretraining, dedicated vision capacity, and pre-fusion placement of that capacity (i.e., before the multimodal backbone). Because published models also differ in data, architecture, and compute, comparing them cannot isolate the effect of each choice. We disentangle these choices via a controlled framework where we pretrain all models from scratch on common data and compare them on visual question answering and language benchmarks at matched lifetime compute. We find that the visual prior is not necessary; an encoder trained jointly from scratch is on par with a pretrained one, without a separate training stage. What matters instead is dedicated vision capacity: an encoder-free model trails on visual understanding even when its backbone is enlarged by the encoder's parameter count. Yet that capacity need not precede multimodal fusion, as vision-only modules added in-fusion to early backbone layers perform comparably to a pre-fusion encoder and can lower time to first token. These results also hold across backbone sizes, when encoder pretraining is treated as free, and when starting from a pretrained language model. Overall, our findings favor dedicated vision capacity trained jointly with the backbone and placed early within it.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter
•
edited about 12 hours ago

How multimodal language models should encode visual input remains up for debate. Most models use a pretrained vision encoder, while some recent recipes train the encoder from scratch with the language model or remove it entirely. Vision encoders bundle together three design choices: a visual prior from upstream pretraining, dedicated vision capacity, and pre-fusion placement of that capacity (i.e., before the multimodal backbone). Because published models also differ in data, architecture, and compute, comparing them cannot isolate the effect of each choice. We disentangle these choices via a controlled framework where we pretrain all models from scratch on common data and compare them on visual question answering and language benchmarks at matched lifetime compute. We find that the visual prior is not necessary; an encoder trained jointly from scratch is on par with a pretrained one, without a separate training stage. What matters instead is dedicated vision capacity: an encoder-free model trails on visual understanding even when its backbone is enlarged by the encoder's parameter count. Yet that capacity need not precede multimodal fusion, as vision-only modules added in-fusion to early backbone layers perform comparably to a pre-fusion encoder and can lower time to first token. These results also hold across backbone sizes, when encoder pretraining is treated as free, and when starting from a pretrained language model. Overall, our findings favor dedicated vision capacity trained jointly with the backbone and placed early within it.

https://unbundling.github.io/

I like that an encoder trained jointly from scratch matches a pretrained one, while an encoder-free model still trails even with the parameters added back. The in-fusion modules lowering time to first token is a nice practical bonus. Did the gap for the encoder-free model show up more on fine-grained tasks like OCR or on general VQA?

·
Paper author

Thanks! The gap for encoder-free shows up more on OCR/Chart benchmarks, although it begins to catch up slightly with more training (Figure 14, page 33). There is also still a gap on the other VQA categories

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2611.17334
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.17334 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.17334 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.17334 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.