Locality Alignment Improves Vision-Language Models
Authors: Ian Connick Covert
Tony Sun
James Zou
Tatsunori Hashimoto
Venue: ICLR 2025 Poster (2025)
Keywords: Multimodal language models
vision-language models
locality
alignment
vision transformers
Primary area: foundation or frontier models, including LLMs
TL;DR: locality alignment post-training helps ViTs recover localized features, improves VLMs

Abstract: Vision language models (VLMs) have seen growing adoption in recent years, but many still struggle with basic spatial reasoning errors. We hypothesize that this is due to VLMs adopting pre-trained vision backbones, specifically vision transformers (ViTs) trained with image-level supervision and minimal inductive biases. Such models may fail to encode the class contents at each position in the image, and our goal is to resolve this with a vision backbone that effectively captures both local and global image semantics. Our main insight is that we do not require new supervision to learn this capability – pre-trained models contain significant knowledge of local semantics that we can extract and use for scalable self-supervision. We propose a new efficient post-training stage for ViTs called locality alignment and a novel fine-tuning procedure called MaskEmbed that uses a masked reconstruction loss to learn semantic contributions for each image patch. We first evaluate locality alignment with a vision-only benchmark, finding that it improves a model’s performance at patch-level semantic segmentation, especially for strong backbones trained with image-caption pairs (e.g., CLIP and SigLIP). We then train a series of VLMs with and without locality alignment, and show that locality-aligned backbones improve performance across a range of benchmarks, particularly ones that involve spatial understanding (e.g., RefCOCO, OCID-Ref, TallyQA, VSR, AI2D). Overall, we demonstrate that we can efficiently learn local semantic extraction via a locality alignment stage, and that this procedure benefits VLM training recipes that use off-the-shelf vision backbones.

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
LOCALITY ALIGNMENT IMPROVES VISION-LANGUAGE MODELS
Ian Covert, Tony Sun, James Zou; Tatsunori Hashimoto" Stanford University
{f covert, suntony, jamesz, thashim) @stanford.edu
ABSTRACT
Vision language models (VLMs) have seen growing adoption in recent years, but many still struggle with basic spatial reasoning errors. We hypothesize that this is due to VLMs adopting pre-trained vision backbones, specifically vision transformers ( (ViTs) trained with image-level supervision and minimal inductive biases. Such models may fail encode the class contents at each position the image, and our goal is to resolve this with vision backbone that effectively captures both local and global image semanties. Our main insight is that we do not require new supervision to learn this capability pre-trained models contain significant knowledge of local semantics that we can extract and use for scalable self- superviievi..... We propose locality alignment and a novel fine-tuning procedure called MaskEmbed that uses masked reconstruction loss to learn semantic contributions for each image patch. We first evaluate locality alignment with a vision-only benchmark, finding that it improves model's performance at patch-level semantic segmentation, especially for strong backbones trained with image-caption pairs (e.g., CLIP and SigLIP). We then train a series of VLMs with and without locality alignment, and show that vecaltyy-aliged backbones improve performance across a range of benchmarks, particularly ones that involve spatial understanding (e.g.. RefCOCO, OCID-Ref, TallyQA, VSR, A12D). Overall, we demonstrate that we can efficiently learn local semantic extraction via a locality alignment stage, and that this procedure benefits VLM training recipes that use off-the-shelf vision backbones.
efficient post-training stage for ViTs called
INTRODUCTION
Auto-regressive VLMs are an exciting new type of model that emerged in the last couple years and has seen growing adoption (Alayrac al., 2022). They are more flexible than previous multi-modal image-text models (Karpathy& & Fei-Fei, 2015; Radford et al., 2021), leverage the reasoning abilities and open-ended nature of pre-trained language models (LMs) (Touvron et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2023), and have the potential to subsume many visual tasks that can be expressed in natural language with interwoven images (Lu et al., 2022; Chen al., 2022a; Gupta al., 2022).
However, current VLMS make a range of basic perceptual errors and struggle in particular with spatial understanding. Multiple recent works document such failures (Tong et al., 2024b; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024), and weaknesses can be seen through benchmarks focused on object localization (Kazemzadeh et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2021), counting (Acharya et al., 2019) and relational question- answering (Liu et al., 2023a). Data limitations exploit visual features without sufficient joint training. But we suspect that another issue is how these models leverage pre-trained vision backbones: the most popular current ViTs are trained with image-level supervision and minimal spatial inductive biases (e.g., CLIPP and SigLIP; Radford et al. 2021; Zhai al. 2023b), they may fail to encode the necessary information for spatial reasoning. Ideally, we want ViT whose representation is sufficient to predict class contents not only for the entire image but also for each region, which we refer to as encoding local semantics. Since most VLM training recipes either freeze or only partially train the VIT backbone (Liu et al., 2023e; Karamcheti al., 2024; Laurençon et al., 2024; Lu al., 2024; Bai al., 2023), and because may be difficult
part of the problem, because LMs might not fully
"Equal advising.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Locsity algrmmet MaskEibeed
Muttimmodal finettiingg
Image Encoder
Image Encoder
13.99
Language Model
664
56.1
detcribe
Encoder
tail
Takerizer
irage
51.24
CCOLM
Figure I: VLM training pipeline with locality alignment. Given pre-trained vision backbone, we first perform a locality alignment stage using our MaskEmbed procedure (left), and then use the fine-tuned VIT to train VL.M (center). We find that doing so improves VLMM performance in multiple benchmarks that involve spatial understanding (right).
to learn local semantics during joint fine-tuning without extensive multi-modal data, we reason that would help to use ViT that better captures these rich image details.
Our goal in this work is to train a vision backbone that matches the best existing models in global image understanding (Radford et al., 2021; Zhai et al., 2023b) but that also encodes local semantics. We reason that disentangling where semantics arise in an image provides necessary information for certain downstream tasks, and sacrifices nothing if local semantics collectively provide rich global image understanding. However, learning such a backbone is challenging due to limitations in current training approaches: for example, scalable objectives like CLIP offer only image-level supervision (Radford et al., 2021), semantic segmentation datasets contain relatively few images (Lin et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2019; Gupta al., 2019), and densely eeffssupervised methods like MAE and BEiT lack rich semantics (He et al., 2022; Bao et al., 2021).
Our main insight is that we do not require new supervision learn this capability. We find that pre-trained models contain significant knowledge of local semantics that we can elicit by querying them with masked inputs: by examining counterfactual predictions under various masking patterns, we can analyze how the outputs change and infer semantics associated with each patch. We use this insight to design fine-tuning procedure we propose a masked embedding self-consistency (MaskEmbed) approach that uses masked patch embeddings to reconstruct masked views from the pre-trained model, and in doing so learns representations that capture localized image semantics.
Since do not require training from scratch, view this post-training stage for ViTs that call locality alignment (Figure 1). The goal of this training stage is to take the set of concepts that an existing model is trained to recognize, and localize them by disentangling where they occur in image. Our approach can be applied to any strong model trained with image-level supervision (e.g., CLIP, SigLIP, MoCo), leverages ceff-supervision instead of requiring costly human annotations, and has relatively low computational cost compared to pre-training. Our experiments focus on improving the performance of VLMs, but locality alignment may also prove useful for other downstream tasks.
To verify the effectiveness of locality alignment, we conduct both a vision-centric evaluation and a languaean evaluation where we compare VLMs trained with different vision backbones. In our first set of experiments, we want to test whether locality-aligned ViTs encode what's where in an image, and we measure this via simple probing benchmark: we cast existing semantic segmentation datasets as patch-wise multi-label classification problem (e.g., MSCOCO; Lin et al. 2014) and find that locality alignment improves the performance of various backbones trained with image-level supervision, particularly language-superviee models like CLIP and SigLIP (Radford et al., 2021; Zhai et al., 2023b). Next, our main set of ssiionlanguage experiments compare series of VLMs trained with and without locality alignment. We train our models using the recently released Prismatic library (Karamcheti et al., 2024) and with the strongest current ViT backbones, and we find that locality alignment improves performance across range of benchmarks, particularly those that involve
2

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
spatial reasoning (e.g., RefCOCO, OCID- Ref, TallyQA, VSR, AI2D). Through these experiments, we find that the best models for VLMs are reliably improved by locality alignment.
To summarize, our main contributions in this work include:
We introduce a locality alignment post-training stage for ViTs to recover local semantics from models that primarily encode global image information. Our MaskEmbed procedure leverages self-supervision to avoid requiring extra annotated data, is especially suitable for lunguage-superviseed models like CLIP and SigLIP, and requires minimal compute relative to pre-training (<1% of CLIP and SigLIP's pre-training compute in our experiments).
Our vision-centric evaluation shows that locality alignment reliably enhances a model's ability to predict patch-level class contents. For various backbones trained with image-level supervi- sion, we find that their locality-aligne counterparts improve at local feature extraction, with especially strong improvements for large and high-resolution models like CLIP ViT-L 336px and SigLIP SO400M @ 384px that are used in most current VLMs.
Our vision- Laigunl evaluation shows that we can incorporate eocality-aligned backbones and improve VLM performance across range of benchmarks. We perform a series of controlled comparisons with a shared training recipe, and we observe improvements on multiple tasks including object localization, text understanding, counting and relational question-answering
Overall, our findings reveal a gap between current pre-trained ViTs and the needs of open-ended VLMs for localized image semantics. Given the low cost and consistent improvements from MaskEmbed, our results suggest that locality aligmment promising idea to incorporate into existing VLM recipes, and potentially for other downstream tasks that require spatial understanding.
RELATED WORK
ViT pre-training. There are many ways to pre-train ViTs, including strongly supervised approaches like image classification (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020), language-supervises objectives like CLIP and SigLIP (Radford et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2022; Zhai et al., 2023b; Tschannen et al., 2023), and various supervueee tasks like BERT-style masked image modeling (Bao et al., 2021; He et al.. 2022), iugmentation-invarianee (Chen et al., 2020b; Caron et al., 2021) and regr-segees pixel generation (Chen et al., 2020a; El-Nouby al., 2024). Pre-trained vision models are often adapted to downstream tasks, including semantic segmentation, object detection and depth estimation (Li et al., 2022b; Birkl et al., 2023; Kirillov et al., 2023), but training data for these tasks is typically scarce. Among these various training approaches, language-supervisd models have proved most effective for VLMs in recent studies (Karamcheti et al., 2024; McKinzie et al., 2024; Tong et al., 2024a). Our work is motivated by lack of training objectives with large-scale, dense and semantically rich supervision. We review existing pre- pre-trainin training approaches in more detail in Appendix A.
VIT local feature extraction. Several works have noted CLIP's lack of localized features in the context of downstream dense prediction tasks (Zhong et al., 2022; Rao et al., 2022; Xu et el., 2022; Wu al., 2024). Other works have shown that ViTs learn associate nearby patches (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020; Raghu et al., 2021; Jelassi et al., 2022), but this is distinct from encoding local semantics in their outputs. Some have proposed hybrid ViTs that reintroduce inductive biases from CNNs (Liu et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; d' Ascoli et al., 2021), but we improve the original ViT's local feature extraction without sacrificing expressive power. The works most closely related ours are RegionCLIP (Zhong et al., 2022), CLIPSelf (Wu et al.. 2024) and LocCa (Wan et al., 2024). RegionCLIP fine-tunes CLIP with synthetically labeled region-text pairs, which avoids human annotation but suffers from noisy caption matching. CLIPSelf fine-tunes CLIP to reconstruct features of random image sub-crops, which is similar to our approach but specifically intended for zero-shot semantic segmentation; this difference in goals leads to suboptimal localization under probing, as we show in Section 4. LocCa is trained to regr-segreyyyvely predict synthetic image captions from OWL-VIT (Minderer et al., 2022), which is itself CLIP model fine-tuned on dense object annotations. Compared to LocCa, our approach requires significantly less compute, does not require any extra human annotations, and can be flexibly applied any pre-trained model.'
We are unable to compare LocCa (Wan et al., 2024) due lack of public checkpoints
3

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
VLMs. We focus the class of auto-regressive vision- -aoon--e LMs, which includes early examples like Flamingo, OFA, BLIP and Llava (Alayrac et al., 2022: Wang et al., 2022: Li et al., 2022a; Liu et al., 2023c), and current frontier models like Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 (OpenAI; Anthropic; Reid et al., 2024). The most common approach to building such models is to combine a pre-trained ViT and a pre-trained LM (Bai et al., 2023; Lu et al., 2024; Beyer et al., 2024), which leverages strong capabilities learned from each modality. Several recent works investigate how to best integrate visual features (Laurençon al., 2024; McKinzie al., 2024; Karamcheti et al., 2024; Tong et al., 2024a). Most use high-resolution variants of CLIP or SigLIP for their vision backbone (Radford al., 2021; Zhai al., 2023b) and either freeze or only partially train the ViT alongside the LM, which makes it important for the initial VIT to capture local semantics.
VI.M perceptual failures. VLMS are a diverse class of models with different interfaces and architectures, but many works have demonstrated perceptual errors across various types of multi- modal models (Thrush al., 2022; Kamath et al., 2023; Yuksekgonul et al., 2023; Xu al., 2024b). For the current generation of auto-regressive VLMs, perceptual flaws are apparent in benchmarks for counting, object localization, relational question-answering object hallucination, and others like BlindTest (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024) and MMMV (Tong al., 2024b). Many of these tasks require spatial understanding, and we suspect that part of the problem is a failure to encode local image semantics. There are other ways approach the issue, but an improved vision backbone composes with many of them: these include fusing features from multiple backbones (Karamcheti al., 2024; Jain al., 2024) or multiple image crops (Liu et al., 2024; Xu al., 2024b), adding extra parameters for image processing (Tong et al., 2024a), and training with more data focused on spatial reasoning (Lu al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023b; Peng al., 2023; Xu al., 2024a).
3 LOCALITY ALIGNMENT
Our goal is to train a vision backbone that encodes semantics both for the image as a whole and for each image region. Rather than training from scratch, we propose to address this in post-training locality aligmment stage. Our main insight, described in this section, is that pre-trained models offer a way to infer local semantics via masking. We show how to extract this information by querying the model with multiple masked images, and then how to make it more easily accessible by fine-tuning the model with self-supervision.
3.1 MASKING IS ALL YOU NEED
Consider model trained to extract rich global representation but no specific information for each image region, c.g., a CLIP image encoder (Radford et al., 2021). We want to use such a model to understand what's where in the image, and we propose to do so with masking. A model that accurately represents global image contents will change its output in response to input masking, and we can exploit this to probe a model under different masked views and understand each patch contribution to the prediction. For example, comparing the output before and after masking a single patch provides information about that region's 's contents (Zeiler & Fergus, 2014).
We can build on this by masking multiple parts of the image and modeling the differences when each patch is masked. The simplest implementation an additive approximation: if the model output is a vector, we can learn vectors of the same size for each patch and train them such that the partial summation approximates the masked output. Concretely, consider an input image represented as a set of n patches x {x1..... }, a binary mask m E 10", and masked image m(x)= {m] : 21...... my, 3n where masked patches are set to the dataset mean. Given a pre-trained model f()) with masked outputs [m)())) E Rd, we can write the patch embeddings as vectors 91..... 9n E idd or as a matrix g = -u....--he 9n] E Raxd, and we can train them such that m. g ~ fm)()) for a fixed image and all masks m.
This approach is a reasonable starting point, and it illustrates that pre-trained models contain latent knowledge of local semantics that can be extracted via masking. It also has a precedent in the literature: querying pre-trained models with masked images was one of the earliest approaches to zero-shot semantic segmentation (Xu et al., 2022), and this learning approach is the basis of certain interpretability methods (Jethani et al., 2021; Covert et al., 2022). However, we find that the additive approximation is limiting and not very effective in our experiments; this is because 1) patch semanties
4

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Reconstration
Masikdd Curput
Shared mask
Teacher
En
Encoder
Figure 2: MaskEmbed training diagram. The encoder and decoder jointly reconstruct the pre- trained teacher's masked output, where patches are masked the embedding layer for the encoder and at the input layer for the teacher.
aren't truly additive and the poor approximation causes us to lose information about each patch, 2) vector embeddings only allow to reconstruct vector targets (e.g., the [CLS] token), which contain small part of the pre-trained model's information about the image. Our main approach presented in the next section therefore generalizes this idea to learn richer patch embeddings.
3.2 PROPOSED APPROACH
We now introduce MaskEmbed, our fine-tuning procedure to enhance a model's local feature extrac- tion abilities. Our basic idea still learn each patch's semanties by reconstructing masked views, but rather than doing with an additive approximation now use expressive reconstruction function, and we obtain the patch embeddings by fine-tuning the pre-trained model.
We now let the patch embeddings be generated by model (x)x) E Raxd which we refer to as an encoder and initialize with weights from the pre-trained VIT. We view the pre-trained model f(-) as a teacher whose masked views f fm((2) are the reconstruction targets given the encoder's equivalently masked output m)(g(()) (x:) E Raxd which we implement by setting masked embeddings to zero. We perform the reconstruction step using transformer h-(-) that we call decoder, and whose predictions are denoted (m(ge(z)) Importantly, the decoder can map to the teacher's output space regardless of its size, so we can adopt either the [CLS] ] token (Rd) or an entire embedding layer (R"*d) as the reconstruction target. To summarize, our model is trained with the following loss function in expectation over images r and random masks m:
min L(O, Φ) Fr.m [h (go()))))))) ((aee)))))m(((m)) [mm()))] 0.0
We call this procedure masked embedding self-connistencyy MaskEmbed for short, and Figure shows a detailed training diagram. The pre-trained model weights are used to initialize the encoder and frozen teacher model, and the decoder is trained from scratch. The intuition behind this approach is that to minimize Equation (1), the encoder's output embeddings must represent semantics for each patch without leaking information from neighboring patches or the image as whole. We expect the sequence of patch embeddings to collectively encode rich local and global information, which should be useful when training open-ended VL.Ms.
Compared to the simpler additive reconstruction approach (Section 3.1), MaskEmbed's use of an expressive decoder helps compress more information into each patch embedding. This also differentiates our approach from CLIPSelf (Wu et al., 2024), which adopts related objective but aggregates CLIP's features by average- saerage-pooling. within crop windows. We show the importance of this design choice in Section 4, where also perform hyperparameters for MaskEmbed. We remark that the main disadvantage of our approach is that our patch embeddings are less interpretable, because they lie in different embedding space than the
ablation study to determine several
5

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
pre-trained model's outputs; however, we reason that this is acceptable because eventual use case is training a VLM that can learn how the entire representation encodes semantics.
3.3 TRAINING DATA
MaskEmbed is supervised by the pre-trained model's s masked outputs, which means we can use any image dataset regardless of its annotations lack thereof. Diverse data covering the pre-training distribution will help localize the broadest possible semantics, ideally including many types of objects, backgrounds, textures, facial features, etc. We use ImageNet- l and ImageNet-21k (hereafter INIK and IN21k) (Deng et al., 2009) for all our experiments, which are relatively diverse and contain 1.2M and 12.6M images in our training sets. A promising idea that we leave to future work using larger web-scraped image datasets like those used for contrastive learning (Schuhmann et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023; Gadre et al., 2023; Fang et al., 2023a), which are even more diverse and could help learn strong localized text features that are less prominent in ImageNet.
Related to training data, we note that our approach only works as intended if the pre-trained model makes meaningful predictions with masked inputs. This be ensured by pre-training with randomly dropped patches, which is performed for some but not all of the models in our experiments (He et al., 2022; Bao et al., 2021; Peng et al., 2022; Fang et al., 2024). Training or fine-tuning with random masking is often suggested in the interpretability literature (Frye et al., 2020; Covert et al., 2021; Jain et al., 2022) because masked images are -iitt--iiittiuution if the model was not trained with masking, but we do not explore this direction and instead rely on the fact that ViTs empirically behave reasonably under masking (Naseer et al., 2021).
4 VISION-CENTRIC EXPERIMENTS
For our experiments evaluating locality alignment, we aim test whether MaskEmbed can success- fully preserve existing model's semantics while disentangling where they occur in an image. We initially want to do so without the complexity and computational cost of training a VLM, so we create probing benchmark inspired by semantic segmentation. We first use this to determine several unspecified hyperparameters for MaskEmbed (e.g.. the choice of reconstruction target), and then to compare suite of pre- treitrd models to their locality- counterparts.
4.1 PROBING BENCHMARK
natural task test whether a ViT encodes local image semantics semantic segmentation (Long et al., 2015). However, this is a pixel-level classification problem, and the most performant approaches for ViTs require fully fine-tuning the backbone (Li et al., 2022c; Chen al., 2022b; Fang al., 2023b), sometimes with windowed self-attention (Li et al., 2022b). We want to test how well a VIT captures local semantics without task-specific fine-tuning, so we simplify the problem by casting as patch-level multi-label classification problem and keep the backbone frozee. Specifically, we create a small output head on top of the ViT's output embeddings, and we train it to predict the union of labels in each patch using a binary cross-entropy (BCE) loss. We implement this approach with MSCOCO (Lin et al., 2014), but we can also use other datasets like Ade20k (Zhou et al., 2019).
The performance this patch-level task tests how well model captures local semantics, and for corresponding measure of global image semantics we also train output heads to predict the union of classes in entire image; refer these tasks local probing and global probing respectively, and we use maero-averaged recall as a performance metric that accounts for class imbalances in MSCOCO (Lin al., 2014). We use two-layer transformer output heads unless otherwise specified, because this tests the information contained in the entire representation and is most similar to how VLM uses the ViT output: Appendix B also shows results with other output heads.
In Appendix B.4, we conduct initial experiments that suggest further gains if locality alignment is preceded by fine-tuning with randomly masked patches.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Ground Truh
Baseline VIT
Abgheed VIT
Ground Thuth
Baseline VIT
Aigned VIT
2.0
650
Figure 3: Qualitative examples from probing benchmark. We plot predictions for two images using CLIP ViT-I. @ 336px before and after locality alignment. The original backbone fails to distinguish where certain objects occur in the image, but the aligned backbone corrects this.
ImageNet Scaling
Aligning
Image-Level Supervision
0.475
Baseline Allgnet
Bazeline
Petch Lave Macre Rocal tuvall
0.52
Aligned
0.450
VITL
0/425
0.50
P-50 354px
0.375
0.48
S4gt,
11T
Putch-
0.350
0.16
3366px
0.325
CLiNe
Sigure
VI--1
ING6-6
10'
10P
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.50
Model Parameters (Log Scale!
Image
Macro Recail (Skeba0
Figure 4: Probing benchmark results. We find that locality alignment with MaskEmbed improves INIK classifiers across multiple model scales (left), and improves many models trained with language supervision (right). Interestingly, most models increase both their local and global probing accuracy.
4.2 ABLATING MASKEMBED DESIGN CHOICES
Our first usage of the probing benchmark is to explore several design choices for MaskEmbed. There are certain hyperparameters that we did not fully specify in Section 3.2, including the choice of reconstruction target and mask distribution, and we also want to test the importance of data augmentations, training duration and data diversity (IN1k IN21k). We consider two pre-trained models for these experiments, IN1k ViT-B/16 and CLIP ViT-B/16 (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020; Radford al., 2021), and we conduct a series of ablations to investigate these implementation choices.
We report the full results of our ablations in Appendix B, but we describe our main findings here that inform settings for our later runs. Reconstruction target: observe that reconstructing the [CLS] token improves local probing performance, but not as much as reconstructing the entire embedding sequence from the second-to-last layer; this expected, and we adopt this choice for the rest of our experiments. Mask sampling: we find that multiple mask distributions are effective, including the block masking approach from BEiT (Bao al., 2021). We adopt an unstructured mask whose cardinality is sampled uniformly at random, and we additionally train with the complement of the mask and a mask that preserves all patches at each iteration." Data augmentations: we observe that strong augmentations like Mixup, CutMix and Auto are not necessary (Zhang et al., 2017; Yun et al., 2019; Cubuk et al., 2018), and we use a simple random crop for our main runs. Decoder size: performance is not very sensitive to the decoder size, transformer. Training data: we find that local probing performance improves within just 2 INIk epochs, and that we get strong improvements in under 50 epochs. We also find that training with the more diverse IN21 is important for CLIP ViT-B/16, which is pre-trained with more diverse data and can degrade when fine-tuned for too long with INIK. For our remaining runs we train all models with IN2 for 5 epochs, which is equivalent to roughly 60k gradient steps with batch size 1024. Notably, this is less than 1% of pre- pre-training cost for CLIP and SigLIP (Radford et al., 2021: Zhai et al., 2023b), so the marginal cost of locality alignment is low.
adopt simple two-layer
IIn our notation this corresponds p(m) (n 1), and each step we calculate the reconstruction loss for three masks: p(m), m and 1.
7

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
4.3 COMPARISON WITH PRE-TRAINED MODELS
We now perform experiments to verify that MaskEmbed improves local feature extraction for a range of pre-trained models. We consider ViTs trained with multiple forms of image-level supervision. including INIk classifiers (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020), CLIP (Radford et al., 2021), SigI.P (Zhai models (OpenCLIP, DFN, EVA02; Cherti al. 2023; Fang et al. 2023a; 2024) and MoCo v3 (Chen et al., 2021). Not all of these models are relevant for high-performance VLMs (Tong et al., 2024a), but we aim to test whether locality alignment works for any model pre-trained with image-level supervision. We use the settings determined in our ablation study, which include reconstructing the teacher's ' entire embedding sequence and training with IN21K for 5 epochs. Other details on MaskEmbed hyperparameters are described in Appendix D.
et al., 2023b), other auguage-superviiee
Overall, we find that MaskEmbed reliably improves local probing performance for all these models, and in many cases even improves their global probing performance. Figure (left) shows the local probing accuracy for IÑIk models across different scales, where we find that performance improves for all models except the low-capacity ViT-T: locality alignment boosts the ViT-B's performance to roughly that of the next model scale, and provides a similar absolute improvement for the ViT-L. Next, Figure (right) shows results for range of models, including three CLIP and three SigLIP backbones, all of which improve substantially. Notably, the two strongest backbones for VLMs show clear improvements (CLIP ViT-L @ 336px and SigLIP SO400M @ 384px), suggesting that the challenge of learning local semantics is not solved merely with scale, but is significantly improved by locality alignment. Figure shows qualitative examples from CLIP ViT-L. @ 336px, demonstrating how MaskEmbed helps identify where each object occurs in the image. Appendix B shows results for the remaining models, all of which show similarly large improvements (OpenCLIP, DFN, EVA02, MoCo v3); find that locality alignment can even improve probing performance for some densely supervised models, including BETT and BEÎTv2 (Bao et al., 2021; Peng et al., 2022). In addition, we corroborate these results by showing that locality alignment improves INIk classification accuracy, which represents a more challenging global image understanding task (see Appendix C).
Table 1: CLIPSelf comparison. We compare MaskEmbed to CLIPSelf's crop-based objective using CLIP ViT-B. For fair comparison we include a version of MaskEmbed with averaged features instead of transformer decoder, and version that uses just one mask per batch rather than three. Results that are worse than the teacher are shown in red.
augs/batch
local
global
teacher
44.63
52.61
CLIPSelf
1x
36.16
42.48
MaskEmbed (avg embed)
1x
40.97
47.68
MaskEmbed
1x
46.07
53.17
MaskEmbed
3x
46.32
54.55
Finally, we perform comparison with CLIPSelf (Wu et al., 2024). This method uses similar objective and reconstructs cropped views using cropped ViT features, but reconstructs CLIP's [CLS] token by simply average- pooliigg embeddings within each crop window. We test this method in Table 1, where we find that it in fact degrades CLIP's probing performance. We suspect that the main issue is not crops but the use of a weak decoder (i.e., averaging features within the crop), and we verify that MaskEmbed also degrades performance when we use this approach to reconstruct the [CLS] J token (averaging unmasked embeddings rather than passing them to a learned decoder). Our main version of MaskEmbed proves to be much more effective, although unlike CLIPSelf it does not preserve CLIP's sero classification abilities.
VISION-LANGUAGE EXPERIMENTS
We now conduct our main experiments by training a series of VLMs with and without locality alignment, and checking for improvements in relevant benchmarks.
Experimental setup. We train VLMs using the Prismatic library and training recipe (Karamcheti al., 2024). Images are tumedd into embedding sequences by the VIT (Liu et al., 2023c), projected
8

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
into the LM embedding space by an adapter module, concatenated with text token embeddings, and processed by the LM. We train in a single stage with the ViT frozen, following Karamcheti et al. (2024). Our experiments focus two high-resolution vision backbones, CLIP ViT-L @ 336px and SigLIP S0400M @ 384px (Radford et al., 2021; Zhai et al., 2023b; Alabdulmohsin et al., 2023), which respectively have 306M and 400M parameters and represent images with 577 and 729 tokens. For our LM backbone we use Llama-2 7B Base (Touvron et al., 2023), which was found to outperform the instruction-tunet Vicuña 7B (Zheng et al., 2023) by Karamcheti et al. (2024).
Llava-1.5 Data Mixture
Llava-1.5 Data Mixture
WtW
WrW
Sigar
PORE
CLP VIT 176px (hilgwed)
PDPE
50.000 haltpe (Nlined)
12
87/70
I MO1
GCA
80.39
MOA
13.04
6d.31
19.11
(0c8)
12:19
7443
Simplal
(CCA)
63:37
64.05
7627
Smppll
$6.28
73.58
50.60
50.00
56.10
6.46
$3.42
Berv
40.27
VSA
77.01
167.36
56.16
70,80
64.54
53.26
70,68
28/24
NJTOPCO)
Rc100CO
RarCaCO+
Rarocco
Extended Data Mixture
Extended Data Mixture
VOW2
WoW
TCTE
CLA VIT.L 3200x (Bacci
CLP VIT @ 376px (Ailgnee)
VOA2
Wol
TCTE
50g21 52400M 204px (Sadi
17 524001 2 304pp (Slgned)
1/04
79.34
65.16
M4
79.00
33
64:55
TwrvOd
$4.00
MyYAA
Tervan (OCA)
(06A)
76.0
Smypel
69.21
78.20
Smipll
31.45
23.21
19.92
53.40
55.69
$8.42
0.22
loarge
51.66
51.11
70,69
65.35
73,00
67.75
200
OCD
4:00
DCD-d
AefCOCo
Ret00COg
AetOOCO
Ret00CD
A+TOCC
R+TOXCO
Figure 5: VLM benchmarking. We plot results across suite benchmarks and show controlled comparisons for CLIP (left) and SPgL.P (right) with both the Llava- data mixture (top) and the extended data mixture (bottom). Overall, we achieve better performance in nearly all metries with locality-aligned backbones. Between the two data mixtures, we find that the larger dataset does not have uniformly better performance and leads to different gains across text comprehension, chart understanding and localization tasks.
For our training dataset, we use the Llava-1.5 data mixture (Liu et al., 2024) that contains 665k examples, and which consists of synthetic instruction completions (Liu et al., 2023c), existing vision- vision-language datasets (e.g., GQA, TextCaps; Hudson & Manning 2019; Sidorov al. 2020) and a collection of language-only data (ShareGPT, 2023). We also experiment with an extended data mixture considered by Karamcheti et al. (2024), which adds Inst-uuus (Wang et al., 2023a) and LRV-Instruct (Liu et al., 2023b) for additional 570k examples. We provide more details on the training data in Appendix E, and all models are trained for two epochs.
Evaluations. We use suite of standardized benchmarks considered by Karamcheti et al. (2024).
Benchmarks that involve spatial understanding and fine- -ne-grained features include object localization (RefCOCO, OCID-Ref; Kazemzadeh al. 2014; Wang et al. 2021), counting (TallyQA; Acharya et al. 2019), relational Kembhavi et al. 2016) and text comprehension (TextVQA; Singh et al. 2019). We also show results
(VSR; Liu et al. 2023a), chart understanding (A12D;

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
for holistic question-answering (VQAv2, VizWiz; Goyal et al. 2017: Bigham et al. 2010) and object hallucination (POPE; Li et al. 2023c), which are not as closely related to spatial understanding. We provide more details our suite of benchmarks in Appendix E.
5.1 RESULTS
We show results in Figure 5 for the full suite of benchmarks. We plot metries in radar charts for both CLIP and SigLIP, separating results based on the two data mixtures that we consider. Following prior work (Karamcheti et al., 2024), we scale each benchmark's ' y-axis based on the mean and standard deviation within our pool of models. We find that locality alignment is broadly useful and improves performance in most benchmarks, especially those mentioned above that involve spatial understanding. Notably, the generally stronger SigLIP S0400M @ 384px backbone (Tong et al., 2024a) has better performance in nearly all benchmarks using our approach.
For VLMs trained with standard backbones, we follow the exact training recipe from Karamcheti et al. (2024). But for those trained with locality-aligned backbones, we find that one small architecture change is necessary to achieve these performance improvements: rather than using the standard MLP lisoon-anguuge adapter (Liu et al., 2024), we use the trained decoder module from MaskEmbed as an adapter (see Section 3.2). This unlocks robust performance improvements consistent with our probing results in Section 4.3, whereas using MLP adapter applied to the fine-tuned embeddings slightly hurts performance (see ablations in Appendix E). We reason that this is because information is compressed into a space that is difficult to use compared to the text-aligned CLIP and SigLIP spaces, and that the decoder helps resolve this for the LM. Overall, the modified adapter adds negligible compute overhead and is a simple change to yield improved spatial understanding.
In Appendix E, also show comparison with alternative approach to improving spatial understanding: fusing features from a second backbone, specifically DINOv2 (Oquab et al., 2023), following the implementation from Karamcheti et al. (2024). We find that both methods improve spatial understanding benchmarks like RefCOCO and TallyQA, with feature fusion in some cases leading to larger gains. However. we also observe that feature fusion can degrade the model in other ways that do not occur with locality alignment, including holistic question-answertig text comprehension (TextVQA) likely because text not prominent in DINOv2's ' pre-training. We leave to future work careful study of how to compose locality alignment with feature fusion, as well as other ideas like combining multi-crop features (Liu al., 2024; Xu et al., 2024b), inereasing image resolution (Bai et al., 2023) and utilizing prefix attention in the LM (Beyer et al., 2024).
(VizWiz) and
6 DISCUSSION
Our main contributions in this work are proposing locality alignment as a post-training stage for ViTs, investigating a specific implementation with MabkEm and demonstrating improvements in local feature extraction and VLM performance. We find that local feature extraction can be improved using only self-supervision, and that this is effective for many models trained with image-level objectives. Most notably, locality alignment boosts performance for VLMs that adopt the high-resolution CLIP and SigLIP backbones, which are widely used in recent works.
One limitation of our work is that we focus on single VLM training approach the Llava-style patches-as-token architecture (Liu et al., 2023c), and the specific Prismatic recipe of training in single stage with the ViT frozen (Karamcheti al., 2024). The benefits of locality alignment may change with end-to-end fine-tuning, but we did not explore this because it is unhelpful with our amount of multi-modal training data (Karamcheti et al., 2024). An important direction for future work is to test locality alignment in other VI.M training approaches, with larger LMs, and to evaluate how it composes with other techniques that enhance visual features.
As other directions for future work, we speculate that locality alignment may yield larger gains when training for longer with more diverse data (e.g., DataComp: Gadre et al. 2023). Next, because we observe significant gains for large and high-resolution backbones, an exciting direction is to locality-align native-resolution ViTs (Dehghani et al., 2023b): these offer the potential to capture fine-grain -na-ggained details in large images, but due their large token counts are at higher risk of mixing information across locations and losing local semantics. And finally, because MaskEmbed can be understood leveraging synthetic data for large-scale dense supervision, it may be possible to
10

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
adapt approach for end-to-end vision-language training and incorporate it into the pre- pre-training data mixture for VLMs like Chameleon (Chameleon Team, 2024), and even vision encoder- architectures like Fuyu (Bavishi al., 2023).
CODE
We provide repositories to reproduce each part of our results:
Locality alignment
bttpps://iitubb.cm
Probing benchmark
VLM training
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Yann Dubois, Sheng Liu, Mert Yuksekgonul, Rahul Thapa, and other members of the Zou and Hashimoto labs for helpful discussions. We also thank the authors of the Prismatic library (Karamcheti et al., 2024), and Ross Wightman for creating and maintaining the timm repository.
REFERENCES
Manoj Acharya, Kushal Kafle, and Christopher Kanan. TallyQA: Answering complex counting questions. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019.
Ibrahim M Alabdulmohsin, Xiaohua Zhai, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Lucas Beyer. Getting VIT in shape: Scaling laws for compute-optimal model design. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023.
Jean-Baptiste Alayrac Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, lain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:23716 23736, 2022.
Anthropic. Introducing Claude 3.5 Sonnet Anthropic.
news/ news/elaude-ie 3-5-sonnet. (Accessed on 06/20/2024).
Stanislaw Antol, Aishwarya Agrawal, Jiasen Lu, Margaret Mitchell, Dhruv Batra, Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. VQA: Visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.
2015.
Alexei Baevski, Wei-Ning Hsu, Qiantong Xu, Arun Babu, Jiatao Gu, and Michael Auli. Data2vec: A general framework for self-supervised learning in speech, vision and language. In International PMLR, 2022.
Conference on Machine Learning, pp.
Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Shusheng Yang, Shijie Wang, Sinan Tan, Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou, Qwen-VL: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308. 12966, 2023.
Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. BETT: BERT pre-training of image transformers. arXiv preprini 2066:2006.082:: 08254, 2021.
Rohan Bavishi, Erich Elsen, Curtis Hawthorne, Maxwell Nye, Augustus Odena, Arushi Somani, and Sağnak Taşırlar. Introducing our multimodal models, 2023. URL hnttps://wwet adept ai/ bl fogg//uuuu..b..
Lucas Beyer, Xiaohua Zhai, Amélie Royer, Larisa Markeeva, Rohan Anil, and Alexander Kolesnikov. Knowledge distillation: good teacher patient and consistent. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10925-10934, 2022.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Lucas Beyer, Andreas Steiner, André Susano Pinto, Alexander Kolesnikov, Xiao Wang. Daniel Salz, Maxim Neumann, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Michael Tschannen, Emanuele Bugliarello, et al. PaliGemma: A versatile 3B VLM for transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07726 2024.
Jeffrey P Bigham, Chandrika Jayant, Hanjie Ji, Greg Little, Andrew Miller, Robert C Miller, Robin Miller, Aubrey Tatarowicz, Brandyn White, Samual White, et al. VizWiz: nearly real-time answers to visual questions. In Proceedings of the 23nd Annual ACM sSmposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 333-342, 2010.
Reiner Birkl, Diana Wofk, and Matthias Müller. Midas v3.1-a model zoo for robust monocular relative depth estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307. 14460, 2023.
Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Hervé Jégou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 9650-9660, 2021.
Chameleon Team. Chameleon: Mixed-modal early-fusion foundation models. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2405.09878 2024.
Charnes, B Golany, M Keane, and Rousseau. Extremal principle solutions of games in charac- teristic function form: core, Chebychev and Shapley value generalizations. In Econometrics of Planning and Efficiency, pp. 123-133. Springer, 1988.
Mark Chen, Alec Radford, Rewon Child, Jeffrey Wu, Heewoo Jun, David Luan, and llya Sutskever. Generative pretraining from pixels. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1691 1703. PMLR, 2020a.
Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1597-1607. PMLR, 2020b.
Ting Chen, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Tsung- Yi Lin, David J Fleet, and Geoffrey E Hinton. A unified sequence interface for vision tasks. Advances Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 31333-31346, 2022a.
Xiaokang Chen, Mingyu Ding, Xiaodi Wang, Ying Xin, Shentong Mo, Yunhao Wang. Shumin Han, Ping Luo, Gang Zeng, and Jingdong Wang. Context autoencoder for self-supervised representation learning. International Journal of Computer Vision, 132(():208-22) 2024.
Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, and Kaiming He. An empirical study of training self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp- 9640-9649,2050
Zhe Chen, Yuchen Duan, Wenhai Wang, Junjun He, Tong Lu, Jifeng Dai, and Yu Qiao. Vision transformer adapter for dense predictions. arXiv preprint ar arXiv:2205.0833 088544 2022b.
Mehdi Cherti, Romain Beaumont, Ross Wightman, Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Cade Gordon, Christoph Schuhmann, Ludwig Schmidt, and Jenia Jitsev. Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2818-2829, 2023.
Ian Covert, Scott Lundberg, and Su-In Lee. Explaining by removing: A unified framework for model explanation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(209):1-90, 2021.
Ian Covert, Chanwoo Kim, and Su-In Lee. Learning to estimate Shapley values with vision trans- formers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05250 2022.
Ekin D Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Dandelion Mane, Vijay Vasudevan, and Quoc V Le. Autoaugment: Learning augmentation policies from data. arXiv preprint arXiv: 18055000000000// 2018.
Timothée Darcet. Maxime Oquab, Julien Mairal, and Piotr Bojanowski. Vision transformers need registers. arXiv preprint ar0iv:2309. 16588, 2023.
12

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Mostafa Dehghani, Josip Djolonga, Basil Mustafa, Piotr Padlewski, Jonathan Heek, Justin Gilmer, Andreas Peter Steiner, Mathilde Caron, Robert Geirhos, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, et al. Scaling vision transformers to 22 billion parameters. In International Conference Machine Learning, pp. 7480-7512. PMLR, 2023a.
Mostafa Dehghani, Basil Mustafa, Josip Djolonga, Jonathan Heek, Matthias Minderer, Mathilde Caron, Andreas Steiner, Joan Puigcerver, Robert Geirhos, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, et al. Patch n' Pack: NaViT, vision transformer for any aspect ratio and resolution. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023b.
Jia Deng, Wei Dong. Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. ImageNet: A large- scale hicrarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 248-255. IEEE, 2009.
Xiaoyi Dong, Jianmin Bao, Yinglin Zheng, Ting Zhang, Dongdong Chen, Hao Yang. Ming Zeng, Weiming Zhang, Lu Yuan, Dong Chen, al. MaskCLIP: Masked self-distillation advances contrastive language-image pretraining. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10995 10995-11005, 11005, 2023.
Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020.
Yann Dubois, Stefano Ermon, Tatsunori B Hashimoto, and Percy S Liang. Improving self-supervised learning by characterizing idealized representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:11279- 1296, 2022.
Stéphane d' Ascoli, Hugo Touvron, Matthew L Leavitt, Ari S Morcos, Giulio Biroli, and Levent Sagun. VIT: Improving vision transformers with soft convolutional inductive biases. In International Conference Machine Learning, pp. 2286-2296 PMLR, 2021.
Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Michal Klein, Shuangfei Zhai, Miguel Angel Bautista, Alexander Toshev, Vaishaal Shankar, Joshua M Susskind, and Armand Joulin. Scalable pre-training of large autore- gressive image models. arXiv preprint urXiv:2401.08541 2024.
Alex Fang, Albin Madappally Jose, Amit Jain, Ludwig Schmidt, Alexander Toshev, and Vaishaal Shankar. Data filtering networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309. 17425, 2023a.
Yuxin Fang, Wen Wang, Binhui Xie, Quan Sun, Ledell Wu, Xinggang Wang, Tiejun Huang, Xinlong Wang, and Yue Cao. EVA: Exploring the limits of masked visual representation learning at scale, In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 19358-19369 2023b.
Yuxin Fang, Quan Sun, Xinggang Wang, Tiejun Huang, Xinlong Wang, and Yue Cao. EVA-02: A visual representation for neon genesis. Image and Vision Computing, 149:105171, 2024.
Christopher Frye, Damien de Mijolla, Tom Begley, Laurence Cowton, Megan Stanley, and Ilya Feige. Shapley explainability on the data manifold. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.0127,, 2020.
Samir Yitzhak Gadre, Gabriel Ilharco, Alex Fang. Jonathan Hayase, Georgios Smyrnis, Thao Nguyen, Ryan Marten, Mitchell Wortsman, Dhruba Ghosh, Jieyu Zhang, et al. DataComp: In search of the next generation of multimodal datasets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023.
Gemma Team, Morgane Riviere, Shreya Pathak, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Cassidy Hardin, Surya Bhupatiraju, Léonard Hussenot, Thomas Mesnard, Bobak Shahriari, Alexandre Ramé, al. Gemma 2: Improving open language models at practical size. arXiv preprint 24Xiv:2408.001 18, 2024.
Spyros Gidaris, Praveer Singh, and Nikos Komodakis. Unsupervised representation learning by predicting image rotations. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1803.07728, 2018.
13

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, Douglas Summers-Ster Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. Making the V in VQA mattrr Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 6904-6913, 2017.
Agrim Gupta, Piotr Dollar, and Ross Girshick. LVIS: A dataset for large vocabulary instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVE Conference Computer Vision and Puttern Recognition, pp. 5356-5556555 5364, 2019.
Tanmay Gupta, Amita Kamath, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Derek Hoiem. Towards general purpose vision systems: An end-to-end task-agnostic vision-language architecture. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 16399-16409, 2022.
Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 16000-16009, 2022.
Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in neural network. arXiv preprint 1rX3v:1503.0253: 2015.
Drew Hudson and Christopher D Manning. GQA: new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference Computer Vision and Puttern Recognition, pp. 6700-6709, 2019.
Jitesh Jain, Jianwei Yang. and Humphrey Shi. VCoder: Versatile vision encoders for multimodal large language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 11992228002, 2024.
Saachi Jain, Hadi Salman, Eric Wong, Pengchuan Zhang, Vibhav Vineet, Sai Vemprala, and Alek- sander Madry. Missingness bias in model debugging. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204 089444, 2022.
Samy Jelassi, Michael Sander, and Yuanzhi Li. Vision transformers provably learn spatial structure. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:37822-37885 2022.
Neil Jethani, Mukund Sudarshan, Ian Connick Covert, Su-In Lee, and Rajesh Ranganath. FastShap: Real-time Shapley value estimation. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al. Mistral 7B. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023.
Zi-Hang Jiang, Qibin Hou, Li Yuan, Daquan Zhou, Yujun Shi, Xiaojie Jin, Anran Wang, and Jiashi Feng. All tokens matter: Token labeling for training better vision transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 8590-186022 2021.
Amita Kamath, Jack Hessel, and Kai-Wei Wei Chang. What's "up"" with vision Languuee models? investigating their struggle with spatial reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.1972 2023.
Siddharth Karamcheti, Suraj Nair, Ashwin Balakrishna, Percy Liang, Thomas Kollar, and Dorsa Sadigh. Prismatic VLMs: Investigating the design space of visually-conditione language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07865. 2024.
Andrej Karpathy and Li Fei-Fei. Deep visual-semantic alignments for generating image descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3128- 2015.
Sahar Kazemzadeh, Vicente Ordonez, Mark Matten, and Tamara Berg. ReferltGame: Referring to objects in photographs of natural scenes. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 787-798, 2014.
Aniruddha Kembhavi, Mike Salvato, Eric Kolve, Minjoon Seo, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Ali Farhadi. A diagram is worth dozen images. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV 14, pp. 251- Springer, 2016.
14

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Dahun Kim, Anelia Angelova, and Weicheng Kuo. Contrastive feature masking open- vocabulary vision transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 15602-15612, 2023.
Alexander Kirillov. Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C Berg, Wan- Yen Lo, al. Segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 4015-4026, 2023.
Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A Shamma, et al. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations. International Journal of Computer Vision, 123:32-73, 2017.
Hugo Laurençon, Léo Tronchon, Matthieu Cord, and Victor Sanh. What matters when building vision- vision-language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02244 2024.
Junnan Li. Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. BLIP: Bootstrapping language-image
pre- tre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 12888 129900 PMLR, 2022a.
Xianhang Li, Zeyu Wang, and Cihang Xie. An inverse scaling law for CLIP training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023a.
Yanghao Li, Hanzi Mao, Ross Girshick, and Kaiming He. Exploring plain vision transformer backhones for object detection. European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 280-296. Springer, 2022b.
Yanghao Li, Chao- Yuan Wu, Haoqi Fan, Karttikeya Mangalam, Bo Xiong, Jitendra Malik, and Christoph Feichtenhofer. MViTv2: Improved multiscale vision transformers for classification and detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 4804 4814, 2022c.
Yanghao Li, Haoqi Fan, Ronghang Hu, Christoph Feichtenhofer, and Kaiming He. Scaling language- image pre-training via masking. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 23390-23400, 2023b.
Yifan Li, Yifan Du, Kun Zhou, Jinpeng Wang, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. Evaluating object hallucination in large vision-language models. arXiv preprini arXiv:2305. 10355, 2023c.
Tsung-Y Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 13, pp. 740-755. Springer, 2014.
Fangyu Liu, Guy Emerson, and Nigel Collier. Visual spatial reasoning. Transactions the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1:635-651, 2023a.
Fuxiao Liu, Kevin Lin, Linjie Li, Jianfeng Wang, Yaser Yacoob, and Lijuan Wang. Mitigating hallucination in large multi-modal models via robust instruction tuning. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023b.
Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08488 2023c.
Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 26296-26306, 2024.
Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hicrarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEFF/CVF International Conference Computer Vision, pp. 10012-10022, 2021.
15

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3431-34404, 2015.
Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017.
Haoyu Lu, Wen Liu, Bo Zhang, Bingxuan Wang, Kai Dong, Bo Liu, Jingxiang Sun, Tongzheng Ren, Zhuoshu Li, Yaofeng Sun, et al. Deepseek- VL: towards real-world ussio-language understanding. arXiv preprint ar arXiv:2403.05525, 2024.
Jiasen Lu, Christopher Clark, Rowan Zellers, Roozbeh Mottaghi, and Aniruddha Kembhavi. Unified- IO: A unified model for vision, language, and multi-modal tasks, In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
Kenneth Marino, Mohammad Rastegari, Ali Farhadi, and Roozbeh Mottaghi. OK-VQA: visual
question answering benchmark requiring external knowledge. In Proceedings of the IEEE/cvf conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 3195-320 3994,,00,, 2019.
Brandon McKinzie, Zhe Gan, Jean-Philippe Fauconnier, Sam Dodge, Bowen Zhang, Philipp Dufter, Dhruti Shah, Xianzhi Du, Futang Peng, Floris Weers, et al. MMI: Methods, analysis & insights from multimodal Ilm pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09611, 2024.
Matthias Minderer, Alexey Gritsenko, Austin Stone, Maxim Neumann, Dirk Weissenborn, Alexey Dosovitskiy, Aravindh Mahendran, Anurag Arnab, Mostafa Dehghani, Zhuoran Shen, al. Simple open-vocabulary object detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 728-752--5 Springer, 2022.
Anand Mishra, Shashank Shekhar, Ajeet Kumar Singh, and Anirban Chakraborty, OCR-VQA: Visual question answering by reading text in images. In 2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), pp. 947-952. IEEE, 2019.
Norman Mu, Alexander Kirillov, David Wagner, and Saining Xie. SLIP: Self-supervision meets language-image pre-training. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 529-544. Springer, 2022.
Muhammad Muzammal Naseer, Kanchana Ranasinghe, Salman H Khan, Munawar Hayat, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Intriguing properties of vision transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 14:23296-23308 2021.
Mehdi Noroozi and Paolo Favaro. Unsupervised learning of visual representations by solving jigsaw puzzles. In European Conference Computer Vision, pp. 69-84. Springer, 2016.
OpenAI. Hello GPT-4o I OpenAl. https://openat: cessed 05/13/2024).
-ottllt----pp-p-- (Ac-
Maxime Oquab, Timothée Darcet, Théo Moutakanni, Huy Vo, Mare Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. DINOv2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.077/93, 2023.
Zhiliang Peng, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Qixiang Ye, and Furu Wei. BETT v2: Masked image modeling with vector-quantized visual tokenizers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208. 06366, 2022.
Zhiliang Peng, Wenhui Wang, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Shaohan Huang, Shuming Ma. and Furu Wei. Kosmos-2: Grounding multimodal large language models the world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306. 14824, 2023.
Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. PMLR, 2021.
16

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Maithra Raghu, Thomas Unterthiner, Simon Korbliihh, Chiyuan Zhang, and Alexey Dosovitskiy. Do vision transformers see like convolutional neural networks? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:12116-12123 2021.
Pooyan Rahmanzadehgervi, Logan Bolton, Mohammad Reza Taesiri, and Anh Totti Nguyen. Vision language models are blind. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06581, 2024.
Yongming Rao, Wenliang Zhao, Guangyi Chen, Yansong Tang, Zheng Zhu, Guan Huang, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. DenseCLIP: Language-guided dense prediction with context-aware prompting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 18082-18091, 2022.
Machel Reid, Nikolay Savinov, Denis Teplyashin, Dmitry Lepikhin, Timothy Lillicrap, Jean-baptiste Alayrac, Radu Soricut, Angeliki Lazaridou, Orhan Firat, Julian Schrittwieser, et al. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05550, 2024.
Tal Ridnik, Emanuel Ben-Baruch, Asaf Noy, and Lihi Malnik-Manor. ImageNet-21k pretraining for the masses. arXiv preprint 200::220441992,, 2021.
Sepehr Sameni, Kushal Kafle, Hao Tan, and Simon Jenni. Building vision-language models on solid foundations with masked distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 14216-14226, 2024.
Victor Sanh, Debut, J Chaumond, and T Wolf. DistilBERT, distilled version of BERT: Smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2019.
Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Wortsman, al. LAION-SB: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 01125577822294 2022.
Dustin Schwenk, Apoorv Khandelwal, Christopher Clark, Kenneth Marino, and Roozbeh Mottaghi. A-OKVQA: A benchmark for visual question answering using world knowledge. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 146-162. Springer, 2022.
ShareGPT. ShareGPT, 2023.
Oleksii Sidorov, Ronghang Hu, Marcus Rohrbach, and Amanpreet Singh. TextCaps: a dataset for image captioning with reading comprehension. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part 11 16, pp. 758-758. Springer, 2020.
Amanpreet Singh, Vivek Natarajan, Meet Shah, Yu Jiang, Xinlei Chen, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Mareus Rohrbach. Towards VQA models that can read. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 8317-8326, 2019.
Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. Alpaca: A strong, replicable instruction-following model. Stanford Center for Research Foundation Models. https://erfm. stanford, edu/2023/033/11/alppee html, 3(6)7,, 2023.
Tristan Thrush, Ryan Jiang, Max Bartolo, Amanpreet Singh, Adina Williams, Douwe Kiela, and Can- dace Ross. Winoground: Probing vision and language models for visio-linguistic compositionality. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 5238 5248, 2022.
Shengbang Tong, Ellis Brown, Penghao Wu, Sanghyun Woo, Manoj Middepogu, Sai Charitha Akula, Jihan Yang, Shusheng Yang, Adithya Iyer, Xichen Pan, et al. Cambrian-I: A fully open, vision-centric exploration of multimodal L.Mss. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406. /6600 2024a.
Shengbang Tong, Zhuang Liu, Yuexiang Zhai, Yi Ma, Yann LeCun, and Saining Xie. Eyes wide shut? exploring the visual shortcomings of multimodal 1lms. In Proceedings of the IÉEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3568-9578, 2024h.
17

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Gabriel Synnaeve, and Hervé Jégou. Going deeper with image transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 32 42, 2021.
Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprini AXXi:2307.002885 2023.
Michael
Tschannen, Manoj Kumar, Andreas Steiner, Xiaohua Zhai, Neil Houlsby, and Lucas Beyer. Image captioners are scalable vision learners too. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023.
Bo Wan, Michael Tschannen, Yongqin Xian, Filip Pavetic, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Xiao Wang, André Susano Pinto, Andreas Steiner, Lueas Beyer, and Xiaohua Zhai LocCa: Visual pretraining with location-aware captioners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19588 2024.
Junke Wang, Lingchen Meng, Zejia Weng, Bo He, Zuxuan Wu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. To see is to believe: Prompting GPT-4V for better visual instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07574, 2023a.
Ke-Jyun Wang, Yun-Hsuan Liu, Hung-Ting Su, Jen-Wei Wang. Yu-Siang Wang. Winston H Hsu, and Wen-Chin Chen. OCID-Ref: A 3D robotic dataset with embodied language for clutter scene grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.0766 2021.
Peng Wang, An Yang, Rui Men, Junyang Lin, Shuai Bai, Zhikang Li, Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. OFA: Unifying architectures, tasks, and modalities through simple sequence-tor seuuence-to-sqqeeee to-sequence learning framework. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 13318-233444 PMLR, 2022.
Wenhai Wang, Zhe Chen, Xiaokang Chen, Jiannan Wu, Xizhou Zhu, Gang Zeng, Ping Luo, Tong Lu, Jie Zhou, Yu Qiao, al. VisionLLM: Large language model is also an open-ended decoder for vision-centric tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023b.
Chen Wei, Haoqi Fan, Saining Xie, Chao- Yuan Wu, Alan Yuille, and Christoph Feichtenhofer. Masked feature prediction for sule-supe visual pre-training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 14668-1444 14678, 2022.
Haiping Wu, Bin Xiao, Noel Codella, Mengchen Liu, Xiyang Dai, Lu Yuan, and Lei Zhang. CvT: Introducing convolutions to vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEFE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 22-31, 2021.
Size Wu, Wenwei Zhang, Lumin Xu, Sheng Jin, Xiangtai Li, Wentao Liu, and Chen Change Loy. CLIPSelf: Vision transformer distills itself for open- open- vocabulary dense prediction. International Conference Learning Representations, 2024.
Tete Xiao, Mannat Singh, Eric Mintun, Trevor Darrell, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. Early convolutions help transformers see better. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 2021.
Hu Xu, Saining Xie, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Po-Yao Huang, Russell Howes, Vasu Sharma, Shang-War Li, Gargi Ghosh, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Christoph Feichtenhofer. Demystifying CLIP data. arXiv preprint ar wxXiv:2309.16677 2023.
Jiarui Xu, Xingyi Zhou, Shen Yan. Xiuye Gu, Anurag Amab, Chen Sun, Xiaolong Wang, and Cordelia Schmid. Pixel-aligned language model. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on 2024a.
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.
Mengde Xu, Zheng Zhang, Fangyun Wei, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, and Xiang Bai. A simple baseline for open- vocabbucyyy semantic segmentation with pre-trained vision- language model. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 736-753. Springer, 2022.
Ruyi Xu, Yuan Yao, Zonghao Guo, Junbo Cui, Zanlin Ni, Chunjiang Ge. Tat-Seng Chua, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Gao Huang. Llava-URR UHD: an Imm perceiving any aspect ratio and high-resolution images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.1 100..117000 /703, 2024b.
18

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini. and Yonghui Wu. CoCa: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01917, 2022.
Licheng Yu, Patrick Poirson, Shan Yang, Alexander C Berg, and Tamara L Berg. Modeling context in referring expressions. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part 11 14, pp. 69-85. Springer. 2016.
Mert Yuksekgonul, Federico Bianchi, Pratyusha Kalluri,, Dan Jurafsky, and James Zou. When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it? In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
Sangdoo Yun, Dongyoon Han, Seong Joon Oh, Sanghyuk Chun, Junsuk Choe, and Youngjoon Yoo. Cutmix: Regularization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 6023-6032, 2019.
Sangdoo Yun, Seong Joon Oh, Byeongho Heo, Dongyoon Han, Junsuk Choe, and Sanghyuk Chun. Re-labeling ImageNet: from single to multi-labels, from global to localized labels. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Puttern Recognition, pp. 2340-2350 2021.
Matthew D Zeiler and Rob Fergus. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6- 12, 2014, Proceedings, Part I 13, pp. 818 833. Springer, 2014.
Shuangfei Zhai, Tatiana Likhomanenko, Etai Littwin, Dan Busbridge, Jason Ramapuram, Yizhe Zhang, Jiatao Gu, and Joshua M Susskind. Stabilizing transformer training by preventing attention entropy collapse. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 40770-40803, PMLR, 2023a.
Xiaohua Zhai, Basil Mustafa, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Lucas Beyer. Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 11975-11986, 2023b.
Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. Mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization. arXiv preprint 171.00944 2017.
Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang. Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing. et al. Judging a-udee- with MT-bench and Chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46595 46623, 2023.
Yiwu Zhong, Jianwei Yang, Pengchuan Zhang, Chunyuan Li, Noel Codella, Liunian Harold Li, Luowei Zhou, Xiyang Dai, Lu Yuan, Yin Li, et al. RegionCLIP: Region- based language- -mnag pre- training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 16793-16803, 2022.
Bolei Zhou, Hang Zhao, Xavier Puig, Tete Xiao, Sanja Fidler, Adela Barriuso, and Antonio Torralba. Semantic understanding of scenes through the Ade20k dataset. International Journal of Computer Vision, 127:302-321, 2019.
Jinghao Zhou, Chen Wei, Huiyu Wang, Wei Shen, Cihang Xie, Alan Yuille, and Tao Kong. iBOT: Image BERT pre-training with online tokenizer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.07832, 2021.
19

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
A EXTENDED RELATED WORK
This section provides an extended discussion of related work, including our proposal's 's connections and differences with existing pre-training and distillation approaches.
Other ViT pre-training methods. The main text mentions a number of strongly supervised, language- supervised and supervupe pre-training methods (see Section 2). We add to list this several more self-supervised methods including iBOT (Zhou et al., 2021), DINOv2 (Oquab et al., 2023), MoCo (Chen et al., 2021), CISSL/DISSL (Dubois et al., 2022), and pretext tasks like jigsaw puzzle solving (Noroozi & Favaro, 2016) and rotation prediction (Gidaris et al., 2018). Beyond these works that develop new objectives, other works explore combinations of multiple objectives (Mu al., 2022; Kim et al., 2023; Dong et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024), e.g., CLIP combined with SimCLR (Chen et al., 2020b) or CLIP combined with MAE (He et al., 2022). Other works combine pre-training with distillation from strong teacher models (Sameni et al., 2024). Compared to these works, locality aligmment 1) relies on self-supervision instead of distilling from other strong models, 2) removes the need for augmenting pre- pre-training objectives with secondary objectives to learn localized semantics.
Knowledge distillation. Knowledge distillation is a technique to train small models that imitate larger ones (Hinton al., 2015) that works across many machine learning problems (Sanh et al., 2019; Taori et al., 2023). Deviating from the original motivation, some works have adopted versions of distillation for self-supervised learning (Caron et al., 2021; Baevski et al., 2022), and others use for masked image modeling (Peng et al., 2022; Fang et al., 2023b) or to learn models that handle missing information for better interpretability (Frye al., 2020; Jethani et al., 2021; Jain al., 2022). MaskEmbed is a form of self-distillation because we reconstruct augmented teacher views, similar to works like Consistent Teaching (Beyer et al., 2022) and ReLabel (Yun et al., 2021). However, our use of masking at the embedding layer is key difference that enables MaskEmbed to learn localized patch semanties.
Comparison with other existing approaches. In Table 2, we compare MaskEmbed to existing methods that use various combinations of masked prediction, dense supervision and knowledge distillation. MaskEmbed differs in its use of dual masking for both the student and teacher, because most methods only perform masking for the student model. Unlike other densely supervised methods, especially masked image modeling methods like MAE, BEiT and MaskFeat (He et al., 2022; Bao et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022), we do not adopt single labels for each patch: MaskEmbed is the only method in Table 2 that supervises student predictions by decoding arbitrarily masked patch embeddings to reconstruct mask-dependent labels. Overall, MaskEmbed has important differences from prior works that enable learning rich localized semantics from a pre-trained teacher model.
Table 2: Comparison to methods involving combinations of masked prediction, dense supervision and knowledge distillation. Unlike some previous works, we do not adopt single labels for each patch but instead let them change function of the mask. Unlike previous works, we perform student masking on patch embeddings rather than raw pixels.
Labels
Dense Supervision
Teacher Masking
Student Masking
MAE (He et al., 2022)
Raw pixels HOG features
MaskFeat (Wei et al., 2022)
BEiT (Bao et al., 2021)
dVAE
BEiTv2 (Peng et al. 2022)
Pre-trained model
EVA (Fang et al., 2023b)
Pre-trained model
data2vee (Baevski et al., 2022)
Momentum encoder
FLIPP (I.i et al., 2023b)
Image captions
CLIPA (Li ct al., 2023a)
Image captions
Masked Surrogate (Frye et al., 2020)
Pre-trained model
Token Labeling (Jiang al., 2021)
Pre-trained model
MaskEmbed (Ours)
Pre-trained model
20

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
B PROBING BENCHMARK DETAILS & ADDITIONAL RESULTS
Output head. All experiments with our probing benchmark use frozen VIT and a trainable output head. The main text results use a transformer output head with two layers, learnable position embeddings, and the same model dimension and number of attention heads as the ViT backbone. We also include supplementary results Figure 6 with linear and MLP output heads; the MLP output heads use one hidden layer of size 1024 and GELU activation.
Hyperparameters. All output heads are trained with the same approach using hyperparameters that we tuned for the non-aligned IN1k ViT-B/16 backbone (see Table 3). We use the training examples from MSCOCO with semantic segmentation masks (118k images) and report results using the validation set (5k images) (Lin et al., 2014). MSCOCO contains 183 total class labels split between things classes, stuff classes and the unlabeled class. We report macro-averaged recall for all results, found that with our multi-label classification setup the per-class 0-1 1 accuracy and AUROC too high to show meaningful differences between models. All training runs are performed on a single NVIDIA H100 80GB GPU.
Table 3: Probing benchmark hyperparameters.
Hyperparameter
Value
Epochs Batch size
5
32
Weight decay Augmentation
0.01
None
Gradient clipping
None
Optimizer
AdamW
$1,82
(0.9, 0.999)
Learning rate schedule
Linear warmup + cosine decay le-3
Max learning rate
Min learning rate
le-4
Warmup steps
500
B. ABLATION STUDY
We report the full results from MaskEmbed ablation study in Table 4. These results inform settings for the reconstruction target, data augmentations, mask sampling approach, loss function, training dataset and training duration. Separately, also found in our early experiments that varying the decoder depth and width did not lead to clear improvements; all our reported results therefore use two-layer decoder with the same model dimension and number of attention heads as the pre-trained VIT. We describe each ablation parameter in detail below.
Reconstruction target. We consider three choices for the teacher reconstruction target: the [CLS] token from the last layer, the last layer's 's entire embedding sequence, and the second-to-last layer's embedding sequence. We find that the embedding sequences both work better than the [CLS] ] token, consistent with our intuition that all the tokens contain useful information. The last layer provides a larger improvement for global probing, and the second-to-Be last layer provides a large improvement for local probing. We use the second-to-lass layer in our subsequent experiments.
Data augmentation. The minimum amount of data augmentation we can apply during MaskE is random crop and resize to the ViT's resolution, in this case 224 x 224 for both IN1k ViT-B and CLIP VIT-B. In addition to the random crop, we consider applying Mixup (Zhang et al., 2017), CutMix (Yun et al., 2019) and an AutoAugment recipe (Cubuk et al., 2018) stronger augmentations. We find that Mixup and CutMix can help boost local probing performance but tend to hurt global probing performance. We opt to use the simple random crop in our remaining experiments, and reason that strong augmentations are unnecessary because our masking leads to training each image with different reconstruction targets in each epoch.
Mask sampling, We consider several approaches to mask sampling. First, we use a block masking approach inspired by BETT (Bao et al., 2021) that uncovers random rectangular regions until desired
21

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
portion of the image is visible. Next, we consider strategy that generates masks of roughly fixed size but without any structure: letting each position be revealed independently with the same probability (Bernoulli), similar to the MAE masking approach (He et al., 2022). Finally, consider uniform masking strategy that first samples the cardinality in {O,.... n) uniformly at random and then assigns the masked elements at random, which creates more variability in the portion of the image that is masked. We find that Bernoulli masking becomes more effective as we uncover larger parts of the image (75% vs. 25%), but that it does not lead to simultaneous gains in local and global probing. Our main experiments use the uniform approach with two modifications: in addition to the sampled mask m we use its complement
m, and we also include the null mask that preserves all patches, which we find is helpful for global probing. These additions require extra compute, but crucially not from the encoder: the extra FLOPs are only incurred by the small decoder and the teacher model that does not require a backward pass for gradient computation, so this leads to just 1.66x the FL.OPs of our base setting with a single mask (assuming a ViT-B backbone and two-layer decoder).
Loss function. We compare several reformulations of our loss function presented in Equation (I). Our base setting is the MSE reconstruction loss calculated over all patches, and we find that this performs slightly better than either a cosine similarity loss & loss that penalize deviations differently. We also compare to reconstructing only the masked patches or only the unmasked patches; while the latter performs slightly better for global probing, we find that the best approach for both local and global probing is to simply reconstruct all patches, which differs slightly from works like MAE and BEiT (He et al.. 2022: Bao et al., 2021). We reason that this is because all the patch embeddings are non-trivial reconstruction targets in our setup, compared to MAE where unmasked patches can be reconstructed with the identity function.
Training data and duration. We compare training with INIK and IN2IK for different numbers of epochs. Our base setting is to train with INIk for 25 epochs, and we find that performance improvements are mostly achieved even with minimal training (as few as 2 INIk epochs). The best global probing performance is achieved in both cases with IN21K, whereas the best local probing performance is achieved with INIk. One notable observation is that our performance does not always increase with longer training for CLIP ViT-B and can even degrade (see INIK global probing): we suspect this is due to insufficient data diversity compared to the pre-training dataset. We choose to train with IN21K lk for 5 epochs in all our subsequent experiments.
22

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
local
global
in teacher
43.50
51.04
cosine
45.55
51.37
layer
local
glohal
&
45.26
51.10
teacher
43.50
51.04
msc
45.66
51.43
(masked)
42.48
45.39
[CLS] token
L
44.16
48.73
mse (unmasked)
45.00
51.67
embed seq
L
45.27
52.21
embed seq
45.66
51.43
(d) Loss function.
(a) Reconstruction target.
dataset
epochs
steps
local
global
local
global
inlk teacher
43.50
51.04
inlk
2
0.1x
45.56
50.22
inlk teacher
43.50
51.04
inlk
0.4x
45.54
51.40
random crop
45.66
51.43
in21k
1
0.4x
45.84
51.60
auto-augment
45.26
49.17
inlk
25
1x
45.66
51.43
mixup
45.72
51.34
inlk
50
2x
45.66
$1.30
cutmix
46.59
48.60
in21k
5
45.74
51.63
(b) Data augmentation.
inlk
100
4x
46.06
50.71
in21k
10
4x
45.80
51.46
Fl.OPs
local
global
(e) INIK ViT-B/16 training data.
inlk teacher
43.50
51.04
block bernoulli 25
1x
45.66
50.29
dataset
epochs
steps
local
global
1x
39.37
46.19
clip teacher
44.63
52.61
bernoulli 50
1x
43.55
46.86
inlk
0.1 x
45.60
52.84
bernoulli 75
1x
45.43
48.75
inlk
10
0.4x
46.02
51.86
uniform
1x
45.32
49.17
in21k
0.4x
46.58
53.61
antithetical
1.33x
45.12
50.97
inlk
25
1x
46.70
51.96
null mask
1.66x
45.66
51.43
inlk
50
2x
46.55
50,91
(c) Mask sampling.
in21k
5
2X
46.32
54.55
inlk
100
4x
46.62
49.12
in21k
10
4x
46.56
54.18
(f) CLIP VIT-B/16 training data.
Table 4: MaskEmbed ablation study. We ablate several task design choices using our probing benchmark, including the teacher reconstruction target, data augmentations applied on top of masking, the mask sampling approach, loss function, and the training data for two pre-trained models (INIk ViT-B/16 and CLIP ViT-B/16). We report the local and global probing performance for all runs. The teacher model results are written in gray, our default settings are highlighted in gray and the best results are bolded.
23

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Output Head Decoding
Aligned Patch- LLvvll Macro Rocall
0.50
0.45
0.40
IVIK VIT-L SigLIP @ 384px
0.35
CLIP VIT-L 336px
Transformer
0.30
MLPP
Linear
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
Baseline Patch-Level Macro Recall
Figure 6: Local probing performance with multiple output heads. We show the improvement in local probing for three models when training three different output heads (transformer, MLP and linear).
B.2 ADDITIONAL RESULTS
We now provide additional results from our probing experiments. First, Figure 6 shows results for three large models trained with three different output heads: INIk VIT-L, CLIP ViT-L @ 336px, SigLIP S0400M @ 384px, and with transformer, MLP and linear output heads. We find that locality alignment improves performance not only with the transformer output head, but also with the other options (except for INIK VIT-L with linear head). The transformer output head is the most relevant setting, but these results show that we successfully compress more relevant semantics for each patch into the corresponding embeddings and not just into the representation notable that large gap remains between the transformer output head and the others even after locality alignment; this shows that the embedding sequence learned by MaskEmbed is far more informative about a patch than the single corresponding patch embedding.
whole. However, it is
Next, Figure 7 examines one model to understand how our improvements are distributed across classes in MSCOCO (CI.PP ViT-I. 336px). We observe that our local probing performance improves roughly uniformly across all classes, with few outliers. We also plot the top 10 most improved classes for both things and stuff; qualitatively, it appears that the most improved things classes are objects that could often be small in image (e.g., cup, bottle, wine glass, scissors), which suggests that locality alignment may help better detect and localize non-dominant objects in an image.
Next, test this by stratifying improvements across object sizes. We group objects into 10 bins representing the portion of the image they occupy, and we re-compute the local probing performance within each bin. Figure 8 shows that we improve probing performance for objects of all sizes, but that locality alignment helps most for smaller objects. Again, this suggests that locality alignment can help better detect and localize non-dominant objects in images.
Next, we examine the probing performance across a suite of pre-trained models without locality alignment. Our goal is better understand how well these models naturally encode local semanties, e.g.. due to inductive bias in the ViT architecture. In Figure (left), we plot the local and global probing accuracy for ViT-B models trained with a diverse set of pre-training objectives, including language supervision (CLIP, SigL.P, OpenCLIP, DFN, EVA02), self-supervision (MAF, DINO, DINOv2) and masked image modeling from pre-trained features (BEiT, BEiTv2).
It can be difficult to interpret absolute performance numbers in our benchmark, but we find that the comparative performance between models is informative. For example, we observe that local and global probing performance increase in tandem following roughly linear trend (Figure 9). This suggests a notion relative locality that describes how well a model performs at local probing given its performance global probing, simply how much it deviates from the empirical trendline. We note that certain models trained with dense self-supervision, including MAE and DINOv2, lie far above the empirical trendline. In contrast, models trained with image-level supervision sometimes lie
24

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Local Probing Performance by Class
1.0
Alggnd Patch-Level Rerail
0.4
0.2
Things
Things (Mean)
Stuff
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Things
Aligrment Stuff
0.200
0.30
Maro Recall
0.06
0.075
0.050
0.02
0.025
uoni moxt
CPP
scitsors
mount
Hishue
curaae
dhondtoaf
minorabir
frost
mnndon Mind
catinel
cape
vodetaatee
walluo
banshall
wine
Figure 7: Local probing improvements by class. Results are shown for CLIP ViT-L @ 336px. We show the improvement for all classes (top), and we plot the top 10 most improved classes among both things (bottom left) and stuff (bottom right).
Alignment Improvement by Object Size
Mazro improvement
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
6-10%
10-20%
30%
30-4m%
40-50%
50-60%
60-70%
70-80%
86-90%
90 50-100%
Ofject Size &% Image)
Figure 8: Stratifying local probing improvements by object size. Results are shown for CLIP ViT-L 336px.
25

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Trained Model Suite (VIT Scale)
Effect of Interventions Probing Accuracy
0.50
Separitie Interversion
Intervantion Macro Recall (Laral)
CLS Intervention
0.48
0.45
DROW
0.40
0.44
Opencuur
DIN
StUUPP
0.35
Toss
BETTV
NIk
0.30
0.40
MA
Lannt
Berr
0.0
Roco
tun cavo
Roco
0.15
0.44
0.48
0.50
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
D.45
0.50
Lavell Matro Reciall (Global)
Inanaformer Dutput Head Macro Reccal [Local]
Figure Probing results for suite of pre-trained models. We compare the local and global probing performance across a diverse set of models (left), and compare the local probing performance before and after applying interventions remove spatial information from the ViT output (right).
Table 5: Complete local probing results. Results are separated by image-level supervision and various forms of dense supervision. Metries that did improve are highlighted in gray.
Baseline
Aligned
Difference
local
global
local
global
local
global
INIk ViT-T
30.13
41.26
30.28
40.89
0.15
-0.36
INIK VIT-S
37.35
46.37
41.46
46.20
4.10
-0.17
INIK VIT-B
43.50
$1.04
45.96
51.84
2.46
0.80
INIK VIT-L
46.00
52.97
48.03
$3.30
2.03
0.33
MoCo VIT-B
37.50
44.60
40.38
45.29
2.88
0.69
CLIP VIT-B
44.63
52.61
46.32
54.55
1.68
1.94
CLIP VIT-L
46.40
54.51
51.38
57.54
4,99
3.03
CLIP ViT-L @ 336px
46.05
55.13
52.71
$7.75
6.66
2.62
SigLIP VIT-B
44.48
54.53
46.54
$4.39
2.06
SigLIP SO400M
48.15
58.25
51.54
58.98
3.38
0.73
SigLIP S0400M @ 384px
50.25
60.53
53.00
60.62
2.75
0.09
OpenCLIP ViT-B
44.25
$2.20
45.17
$2.62
0.92
0.42
EVA02 VIT-B
44.91
52.93
49,21
$1.47
4.30
-1.46
DEN VIT-B
44.36
52.36
45.67
53.72
1.31
1.36
MAE VIT-B
39.46
43.53
37.80
42.33
-1.66
-1.20
BEiT VIT-B
41.01
49.56
43.13
49.90
2.13
0.35
BEiTv2 VIT-B
42.98
49.44
46.60
53.58
3.62
4.14
DINO VIT-B
40.84
46.35
40.18
46.32
-0.67
-0.03
DINOv2 ViT-B
50.18
56.95
50.79
55.64
0.61
-1.31
far below the line (MoCO v3, SigLIP); this indicates relatively poor local feature extraction and is a sign that locality alignment may be effective. Locality alignment is an intervention that can shift model upwards and improve its relative locality.
Next, consider what these results imply about how well ViTs naturally encode local semantics. Our work is motivated by the intuition that they may not, due to pre-training objectives that do not encourage and lack of inductive biases in the architecture, but in reality these models do not fail outright at the probing task. To emphasize this, we experiment with two interventions applied the transformer output head: 1) we restrict
only have access to the [CLS] token (or the average embedding for models that do not use one), and 2) we anonymize the VIT's output embeddings by removing their learned positional embeddings and placing them in separate token positions from the predictions. Figure 9 (right) shows the probing performance before and after these interventions. It is clear that performance degrades due to these interventions, especially the first, suggesting that the ViT output does not collapse into global representation containing information about each patch's class contents. This is clear evidence that the patch embeddings provide useful information that significantly improves probing performance, even for models where these not explicitly trained
26

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
(e.g., CLIP, INIk). However, they generally do not perfectly capture local semantics and in many cases benefit from locality alignment.
Finally, Table 5 shows the results of rumning MaskEmbed our full suite of pre-trained models. We observe that locality alignment improves local probing performance for all models trained with image-level supervision, and in most cases it also improves their global probing performance. The results are mixed for models trained with dense supervision: MAE, DINO and DINOv2 barely benefit from locality alignment (He al., 2022; Caron al., 2021; Oquab al., 2023), and although BEiT and v2 do (Bao et al., 2021; Peng et al., 2022) this could be because we use checkpoints that are fine-tuned for INIK classification." We also note that results between different models are sometimes not comparable due to differences in resolution and patch size. Surprisingly, DINOv2 is the best- performmonn model overall despite being a relatively weak backbone for VLMMs (Karamcheti et al., 2024; Tong et al., 2024a); we interpret this to mean that DINOv2 is exceptionally good at detecting and localizing the set of classes in MSCOCO, which are relatively narrow and perhaps not indicative of the diverse images handled by VLMs.
B.3 CLIPSELF COMPARISON
We now describe our comparison with CLIPSelf (Wu et al., 2024) in more detail. We implemented a simple version of CLIPSelf where crops are aligned with the VIT's patch grid: we use CLIP ViT-B/16 (Radford et al., 2021), which operates on grid of 14 x 14 = 196 patches, and for consistency with Wu al. (2024) we sample crops containing between 3-14 patches on each side. The cropped image is then upsampled to 224 x 224 for the teacher model, which deviates slightly from the choice to pad Wu et al. (2024). The student VIT's patch features are weraageppooled within crop window to reconstruct the teacher's [CLS] token, and we train the model with cosine similarity loss as in the original work. We sample one crop per image at each gradient step, and for a fair comparison we also version of MaskEmbed that uses just one mask per gradient step. When rumning version of MaskEmbed that performs reconstruction via average-pooling, we use the block masking strategy (Bao al., 2021) to avoid masks that contain image patches. Unlike in the original CLIPSelf work we do not increase the student's 's resolution during training, which is a step that we also did not apply with MaskEmbed.
Figure 10 illustrates the masking and cropping operations involved in MaskEmbed and CLIPSelf. Both augmentations
meaningfully change the teacher's output depending on what contents removed. Our results in Table suggest that the main reason for CLIPSelf's poor performance is the use of crops instead of masks, but the choice reconstruct the teacher's [CLS] token by average-pooling features within each crop window. We speculate that a version of CLIPSelf that adopts transformer decoder would be significantly more effective, but we leave this exploration to future work.
'We use checkpoints available ti at
pytorch-image-mode
27

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Image
Mask / Crop
Teacher
MaskEmbed
P(Ocean Lineri 18%
P|Oceen Liner) 3%
CLiPSe
P(Ocean Linerl 18%
PIOcean Liner) -
Figure 10: Image transformations for MaskEmbed and CLIPSelf. We show the original image, the randomly sampled image augmentation for each method (either mask crop), and the modified image seen by the teacher model. We annotate each image with class probabilities generated by IN1k ViT-B/16 show that both augmentations can meaningfully change the teacher's output.
28

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
B.4 MASKED IMAGE MODELING COMPARISONS
In Section 3.3, we briefly discuss how locality alignment only works when the teacher model appropriately handles masked images, and how this can be encouraged by fine-tuning with random masking (Frye et al., 2020; Covert et al., 2021; Jain et al., 2022) before using locality alignment. We now explore the impact of including this additional fine-tuning stage.
In particular, we explore fine-tuning the VIT network with randomly masked input patches, and an objective of reconstructing embeddings from a frozen version of itself that processes entire images. Intuitively, this teaches the model to predict the semantics of the entire image by making its best guess for the missing patch contents, which is ideal behavior for the teacher model in locality alignment. We remark that this is similar to masked image modeling methods like MAE (He et al., 2022), but performing this task with rich features known to work better than with raw pixels as the reconstruction target (Wei et al., 2022), and is the basis of recent masked image modeling works like BEiT v2 and EVA.
In Table 6, we test using locality alignment in different combinations with masked image modeling. Similar to locality alignment, we train for 5 epochs with IN21k and set other hyperparameters identically. We find that applying either fine-tuning approach to the original CLIP ViT-B backbone improves local and global probing, but that the gains are significantly higher for locality alignment. The gains local probing are further improved if perform masked image modeling followed by locality alignment, as predicted, which suggests that masked image modeling is a powerful precursor for locality alignment. Note that it could in principle be up-streamed into pre-training by simply dropping random patches, similar to FLIP (Li et al., 2023b). The best overall local probing performance achieved by applying a subsequent round of masked image modeling fine-tuning, but this significantly degrades global probing. Meanwhile, the best overall global probing performance achieved by applying locality alignment directly on the original CLIP ViT-B. For relatively simple procedure that performs well at both probing tasks, a single round of masked image modeling followed by locality alignment is competitive at both evaluations, but we did not use this any other experiments.
Table 6: Combining masked image modeling with locality alignment. We compare local and global probing performance for CLIP ViT-B models with different sequences of masked image modeling (MIM) and locality alignment. We find the the local probing performance be significantly improved by performing locality alignment after an initial masked image modeling stage.
Model
Teacher
local
global
CLIP VIT-B
44.63
52.61
CLIP ViT-B (MIM)
CLIP VIT-B
45.80
52.98
CLIP VIT-B (Align)
CLIP VIT-B
46.32
54.55
CLIP VIT-B Alig/Align)
CLIP VIT-B (MIM)
47.30
53.63
CLIP VIT-B (MIM/Aliga/MIMM)
CLIP VIT-B (MIM/Align)
48.54
51.05
CLIP VIT-B (MII//Algg//MIM//liin))
CLIP VIT-B (MIM/Align/MMIM)
47.80
53.34
29

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
C IMAGENET CLASSIFICATION
Our vision-centric experiments in Section 4 rely on the probing benchmark (see Appendix B), which assesses both local and global feature extraction but with a relatively narrow set of classes. To further test global semantic understanding and verify that it does not degrade with locality alignment, we also consider INIK classification. We adopt an end-to-end fine-tuning setup with hyperparameters similar to those in OpenCLIP (Cherti et al., 2023), and we focus on CLIP backbones only for simplicity (Radford et al., 2021). One difference in our setup is that we replace the standard linear head for a transformer output head, because locality alignment teaches the model output relevant semantics in all the output embeddings rather than just the [CLS] token.
The results are shown in Table 7, and show that the classification accuracy does not degrade but instead improves after locality alignment, across three ViT architecture variants. These results echo those in Table 5 for global probing, but in this case with end-to-end fine-tuning rather than frozen backbone, and also a more challenging classification task. We attribute the improved performance to 1) the use of full mask in EaskEmbed that leads preserving global image understanding, and 2) an overall more challenging task that leads to stronger and more steerable internal features.
Table 7: INIk classification accuracy. For each model, perform end-to-end fine-tuning for 50 epochs before and after locality alignment, and we report the top-1 accuracy.
Model
Baseline
Aligned
CLIP VIT-B
82.6
83.1
CLIP VIT-L
85.9
86.3
CLIP VIT-I. @ 336px
86.4
87.0
D MASKEMBED TRAINING DETAILS
We use this section to provide more details on MaskEmbed implementation.
Teacher model. The teacher ViT is initialized from the pre-trained model weights and not updated during training. Its inputs are masked images, where masking is applied by setting masked patches to the image mean (or zero when images are normalized). Its output can be set in multiple ways, but we find that entire layer's embedding sequence works best.
Encoder. The encoder ViT is initialized from the pre-trained model weights and updated throughout training. Its input is unmasked image, and its output is a sequence of patch embeddings that go through an additional linear output head. We experimented with re-initializing the final transformer block because these parameters are typically pre-trained only pass information the (CLS) token (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020; Radford et al., 2021), but this did not improve performance.
Decoder. The decoder is shallow transformer trained from random initialization, and we use LayerScale to ease its optimization (Touvron et al., 2021). Its input is masked sequence of patch embeddings, and its output is reconstruction of the masked teacher view. We extract the first entry from the output when reconstructing the [CLS] ] token, and we otherwise use the output at every position. We use learned position embeddings, omit the standard layer norm after adding position embeddings, and put the final output through a linear layer.
Prefix token handling. Most pre- pre-trained models that we consider use [CLS] token or other prefix tokens; our DINOv2 backbone uses extra register tokens (Darcet et al., 2023). For these models, it is unclear what role the prefix tokens should play in the reconstruction, because our goal to compress semantics into the patch embeddings. We choose to mask prefix tokens at the decoder's input layer, but we keep them as part of the reconstruction objective.
Training instability. We encountered training instabilities in certain experiments, specifically a slow loss divergence that occurs partway through training. This type of instability has been reported the literature with ViTs, with some works attributing it to saturation of the attention logits resulting in one- hot softmaxes (Zhai et al., 2023a); empirically, we were able to verify that diverged runs had a long tail of large attention logits. One common fix, QK-norm (Dehghani et al., 2023a; Chameleon Team,
30

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
2024), cannot be applied here because fine-tune models that were pre-trained without QK-norm. We therefore use another approach that can be applied with pre-trained model: logit soft-capping, where use t tanh activation to constrain attention logits within fixed range (Gemma Team et al., 2024). We adopt this approach in most of our MaskEmbed runs, including all runs that were used for training VLMss. We also had some success with increasing AdamW's parameter and increasing the weight decay to 0.1, but these sometimes led to slower optimization.
Training data. We experiment with running MaskEmbed using two datasets, INIK and IN2IK (Deng et al., 2009). We use the standard train and validation splits for INIK, and we follow the pre-processing guidelines from Ridnik et al. (2021) for IN21k and create validation set using sufficiently prominent classes.
Hyperparameters. We report hyperparameters for our main MaskEmbed runs Table 8, All models are trained with AdamW (Loshchilov & Hutter, 2017), slightly lower B2 than the default value, moderate weight decay, minimal augmentations, gradient clipping, cosine learning rate schedule, and batch size 1024. All MaskEmbed runs are performed on single node with 4 NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80GB GPUs.
Table 8: MaskEmbed hyperparameters.
Model scale
Hyperparameter
ViT-T / ViT-S ViT-B ViT-L/WTT-S440M
Global batch size
1024
1024
Weight decay
0.01
0.01
Gradient clipping Optimizer
1.0
1.0
A
Adam W (0.9, 0.95)
$1,82
(0.9, 0.95)
Learning rate schedule
Cosine decay
Cosine decay 2e-4
Max learning rate
3e-4
Min learning rate
3e-5
2e-5
Augmentations
Random crop
Random crop
D. ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES
This section discusses some additional perspectives and observations about MaskEmbed.
Augmentation compression. MaskEmbed can be viewed as compressing a large number of aug- mentations into single learned representation: query specific augmentations based how the embeddings are masked, and we obtain approximate reconstructions via the decoder. We note that CLIPSelf (Wu al., 2024) can also be viewed form of augmentation compression with crops rather than masks.
Relationship masked image modeling, MaskEmbed bears some similarity BERT-style masked imaging modeling (MIM) methods like MAE, MaskFeat and BEiT (He et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022: Bao et al., 2021), but there are several important differences. 1) When encoding images, MIM methods mask the image at the input layer; MaskEmbed encodes the entire image and masks only the output embedding layer. 2) MIM methods adopt static labels for each patch (although they typically only train on masked patches); we do not require labels for each patch embedding, and instead supervise predictions via their ability to reconstruct arbitrary masked teacher views. 3) Most MIM methods are designed for pre-training; MaskEmbed is a post-training method that can be applied to any pre-trained ViT backbone, including strong pre-training approaches that MIM methods struggle to match (e.g., CLIP, SigLIP; Radford al. 2021; Zhai al. 2023b).
Relationship to feature attribution. As described in the main text, our reconstruction objective in Equation (1) generalizes existing feature attribution approach (Jethani et al., 2021; Covert et al., 2022). Given masked outputs fm((x) E Rd and a learned patch embedding model (x() E RR*x xd can train the model to approximate go (2:) [m((x) for all m using the following objective:
31

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
min Ez. [m ge(x) - ff (m(x))
Unlike in our generalization that expressive decoder, the resulting patch embeddings from Equation (2) have an analytic solution: the solution depends on the choice of mask distribution p(m), and there exists specific distribution that results Shapley values (Charnes al., 1988). Additionally, the learned embeddings share the semantics of the original model: for example, if fa) a classifier, then the learned embeddings represent how each patch affects the class probabilities. Our generalization sacrifices these properties, but we find that this is necessary to learn richer patch embeddings.
Relationship to hybrid ViTs and convolutional patch embeddings. The original ViT architecture uses lightweight linear projection to turn patches into tokens, and then passes these through series of transformer blocks (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020). Other works have explored using more expressive patch embedding modules, c.g., a series of residually connected convolutions (Xiao et al., 2021). The combined model (x)) we train with MaskEmbed can be viewed as using highly expressive, transformer- based patch embedding module followed by a small number of transformer blocks that aggregate the rich patch embeddings. If this architecture were trained directly like image classification, the intermediate embeddings would not be constrained to be patch-specifie; they are only forced represent localized semantics in our approach because 1) mask the internal embedding layer, and 2) we use labels that change depending on the mask.
prediction task
Objective degeneracy. One potential concern about our approach that the objective in Equation (1) is degenerate: it contains a trivial solution where the encoder acts as an identity function and the decoder replicates the teacher model, or go(+) = I(-) and h-)-) f-)). This solution is undesirable because it fails to encode rich semantics in each patch embedding, and when training a VLM it is equivalent to passing raw patch projections (similar to the Fuyu architecture; Bavishi et al. 2023). Given the strong performance we observe in practice from MaskEmbed, we reason that the trivial solution is avoided due to 1) the encoder's 's strong initialization, and 2) the decoder's small number of parameters and weak initialization. We tried training the encoder from scratch in carly experiments, and we found that it was important to use a shallow decoder to avoid simply preserving information with the encoder and offloading computation. However, the objective degeneracy does not appear to be an issue when fine-tuning.
Need for self-attention. A related observation is that because we only need patch-specific information in each learned embedding to reconstruct masked views, we may not need self-attention in the encoder. For example, helpful inductive bias could be to replace the ViT transformer blocks with residually connected MLPs, because this prevents patches from mixing information. We experimented with such an architecture and found that it performed poorly, learning more slowly and converging to worse model than a VIT encoder even when both were trained from scratch. Interestingly. this suggests that anter-patchhee communication is helpful to understand each patch's 's semantics, and it shows that the expressive ViT architecture is highly beneficial for this task.
32

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
E VLM EXPERIMENT DETAILS & ADDITIONAL RESULTS
Training recipe. Following Karamcheti et al. (2024), we train the VLM in a single stage with the ViT frozen. This differs from some works that fine-tune the vision backbone and/or include preliminary training stage to only train the vision- vision-language adapter, including Qwen-VL (Bai et al., 2023), Idefics2 (Laurençon et al., 2024), DeepSeek- VL (Lu et al., 2024) and Pali-Gemma (Beyer et al., 2024). We use these settings because they were found to work best in this training library and with our quantity of training data.
Hyperparameters. Our hyperparameters are identical to those in Karamcheti et al. (2024), which themselves are inspired by Llava- 1.5 (Liu al., 2024). We report these below in Table 9. All VLMs are trained on single node with 8 NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80GB GPUs.
Table 9: VLM training hyperparameters.
Hyperparameter
Value
Epochs
2
Global batch size
128
Max sequence length
2048
Weight decay
0.1
Gradient clipping
1.0
Optimizer
AdamW
$1,82
(0.9, 0.999)
Learning rate schedule
Linear warmup cosine decay
Max learning rate
2c-5
Min learning rate
0
Warmup ratio
0.03
Training data mixture. The Llava-1.5 1.5 training data mixture (Liu al., 2024) consists of data sourced from several pre-existing datasets. These include synthetic instruction completions from the original Llava work (Liu et al., 2023c), collection of existing VQA datasets (VQAv2, GQA, OCR-VQA, OK- OKA A-OKVQA; Goyal et al. 2017; Hudson & Mamning 2019; Marino et al. 2019; Mishra al. 2019; Schwenk al. 2022), captioning data (TextCaps; Sidorov et 2020), referring expression data (RefCOCO, Visual Genome; Kazemzadeh et al. 2014; Yu et al. 2016; Krishna et al. 2017), and ShareGPT data sourced from user conversations (ShareGPT, 2023). Our extended data mixture also includes the recent LVIS-Instruct-4V (Wang et al., 2023a) and LRV-Instruct (Liu et al., 2023b) datasets, which roughly double the number of training examples.
Benchmarks. Our benchmarks are summarized in Table 10, including the prompt type, scoring method and details about variants of certain tasks. Some benchmarks are scored based on exact match using model response probabilities, others use intersection-over-uni bounding box predictions, and others use the standard VQA scoring method (Antol et al., 2015). All reported results full splits set up by Karamcheti et al. (2024) consisting of several thousand examples each. Our radar charts use axes that are scaled separately for each benchmark based on the mean and standard deviation of performance within our pool of models; the models in this pool include the main runs with the original and locality-aligned backbones (Figure 5), ablations on the languae adapter described below (Figure 11), and DINOv2 feature fusion (Figure 13), all for both the CLIP and Sig backbones.
(IoU) thresholds for
33

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Table 10: Summary VLM benchmarks.
Benchmark
# Examples
Prompt Type
Scoring
Details
VizWiz
4319
Open-ended
VQA
Some questions unanswerable
VQAv2
214354
Open-ended
VQA
GQA
12578
Open-ended
Exact match
TextVQA (OCT)
5000
Open-ended
VQA
Prompt includes OCR dump No OCR dump
TextVQA (pure)
5000
Open-ended
VQA
A12D
15501
Multiple choice (4)
Exact match
RefCOCO
10834
Bounding box
Acc 0.5 IoU
Spatial terms allowed No spatial terms allowed Long object descriptions
RefCOCO+
10758
Bounding box
Acc 0.5 IoU
RefCOCOg
4896
Bounding box
Acc @ 0.5 IoU
OCID-Ref
18342
Bounding box
Acc @ 0.25 IoU
VSR
1222
True/false
Exact match
TallyQA (complex)
15598
Multiple choice (16)
Exact match
Involve filtering criteria No filtering criteria
TallyQA (simple)
22991
Multiple choice (16)
Exact match
POPE
9000
Open-ended ended
Exact match
34

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
E. ADDITIONAL RESULTS
We now report several additional results from our VLM experiments.
First, Figure 11 shows series of ablations for VLMs trained using different vision-language adapters. In the main text, we report that using the standard MLP adapter for aligned backbones degrades performance (see "Aligned MLP" vs. "Baseline MLP") but that using the decoder as an adapter improves performance (see "Aligned Decoder"). To be sure that our improvements are due to locality alignment and not only the stronger adapter, we run several experiments using different adapter approaches for the baseline ViTs. First, we try training transformer adapter from random initialization with the same size as the aligned model's decoder; we find that this hurts performance compared to the MLP adapter (see "Baseline Transformer"), and we suspect that this is due to our VLM setup having insufficient training data to learn this module from random initialization. Previous works that successfully use transformer- -aaseeddedee adapters have significantly more training data (Bai ct al., 2023; Laurençon et al., 2024), so this result suggests that the decoder adapter is effective in part because it is initialized from pre-traue pre-trained parameters.
Next, because a fair comparison with our aligned model's decoder is not possible for the baseline backbone, attempt to mimic the idea of using pre-trained transformer layers for the adapter: simply use the last two ViT blocks with an additional linear layer, which we refer to as a truncated adapter. We remark that this represents partially fine-tuning the backbone, which along with training using low-rank updates (Laurençon et al., 2024), unfreezing it partway through training (Lu et al., 2024), and giving longer warmup schedule (Beyer al., 2024) an option to stabilize joint fine-tuning, We find that this approach is less effective than the decoder adapter for aligned models (see "Aligned Truncated" vs. "Aligned Decoder"), but that can improve performance over a MLP adapter for the baseline model (see "Baseline Truncated" vs. "Baseline MLP").
Since this is new stronger baseline, we show head-to-head comparison with our locality- approach in radar charts in Figure 12. We find that the locality-aligned models preserve their improvements in several tasks, including A12D and all three RefCOCO variants for both models, as well as POPE and TallyQA (Simple) for CLIP VIT-L. @ 336px and VizWiz and OCID-Ref for SigLIP S0400M @ 384px. Overall, we conclude that our adapter strategy explains some of the gains observed in Figure 5, but that even adjusting for this with stronger baseline shows improvements in several tasks, especially object localization and chart understanding.
Finally, Figure 13 and Figure 14 show results from our feature fusion runs with DINOv2 (Oquab et al.. 2023; Darcet et al., 2023). Our implementation of feature fusion follows Karamcheti et al. (2024): we concatenate the two output sequences along their embedding dimension and then pass this through a MI. adapter. As we describe in the main text, the fused hackbones often lead to larger gains in core localization tasks, likely due to DINOv2's excellent performance at dense prediction tasks (Oquab et al., 2023); however, it also leads the model to degrade in other ways, notably in VizWiz and TexVVQ, which does not occur with our locality-aligned backbones. Overall, the more robust improvements from locality alignment make it an appealing option to improve localization tasks without negatively impacting other model capabilities.
35

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Llave-1.5 Data Mixture (Adapter Ablations)
Cur HTL 233p2 Saan
Out MET4 23i0e Chanovee
CLe str4, 3250x18dg ad Voncatee
(Adapter
so bo mandeeee
voccome by dnige ligadd canod)
2ggl 50400H 364x Thantmment
pur 504884 & 330ps Wilgned Hut
Spu 504834 y 300ps lines Desoceed
04
10004
Figure 11: VLM adapter ablations. We report results for several lanion- adapter ablations using both the baseline and locality-aligned backhones.
36

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Llava-1.5 Data Mixture (Truncation Ablation)
CLI VIT-L 336p (TFuncated)
(Aligneti
GOA
57.21
Ta/yOA
87.70
TextVD
[OCR]
64.29
76.87
48.01
Tyly4
Simple)
58.33
74.43
Rotvva
(Pore)
$1.74
5:28
46:27
68.50
66.99
VSR
4b:07
55:74
67:77
74,88
OCIDRef
RefOOCOO
Liava-1.5 Data Mixture (Truncation Ablation)
V2W2
SigUP 50400M y 384px (Truncatec]
SigUP S068OM g 381ppx (Aligned)
voAw2
POPE
88,10
60A
80.52
TallQQA Camp lxx)
63.04
80.39
57,02
17.55
63.03
88.72
TextvoA
TalydA
81.27
76.02
76.27
68.67
58.10
65.71
69.07
74,68
68.38
69.96
5h26
A120
0OD Ref
70.79
72,11
RafoCCo
RefCOCCg
+ofCOCO
Figure 12: Comparison between locality alignment and original model with truncated adapter. We find that VLMs trained with locality- backbones often outperform new and stronger baseline, which truncates the last two ViT layers and fine-tunes them as a vision-language adapter.
37

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Pasion)
CUP MPU 9-38dex Shacken)
0.2
0000
Aetoddy
Usve 1.5 Data Mixture |Peature Pusion!
1a 501tme (1ain VIT
SAgu 50400H-0 è 364px Higresi
12
Figure 13: VLM comparison with DINOv2 feature fusion. We compare the baseline and locality- aligned VLMs with alternative strategy enhance the visual features, which is fuse with DINOv2's output embedding. We find that this approach can lead to larger gains on localization tasks but also degrades the model in other ways.
38

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
(Feature Fusion)
ViaWi
VQAv2
POPE
CUP VIT-L 3:30px (Aligned)
60A
TallyQ4
64:48
TalyA
(OCR]
64:29
58.33
74.43
73.57
12:33
50.65
04.83
52.32
46.27
(fom)
55/74
74,88
Ab.26
67.77
A120
OOD-Ret
71004
71,20
RafCOCO
RefcoCCy
Llava-1.5 Data Mixture (Feature Fusion)
SigUPP 50400M DINOV2 VIT-L g 336px
SigUP 50400M 384px (Alignes)
VoNw2
POPE
59/41
60A
Campla
TailyQA
79:00
$6.04
RexVVAA (OCR]
54.04
TalyDA
01:27
45.42
76.00
7627
Simple)
65.71
66466
TextVOA
$0.35
56.42
77,05
70.79
$1.26
72/11
A/20
000
71,45
72.63
RafCoco
RefCoCCy
Roft000
Figure 14: VLM comparison with DINOv2 feature fusion. We compare VLMs with locality- aligned backbones to fusing features between CLIP/SigLIP and DINOv2. TextVQA benchmarks are not shown for CLIP ViT-L + DINOv2 fusion due to the accuracy lying outside the display range, more than three standard deviations below the mean performance.
39


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "Bz73AUKihl", "reviewer": "Reviewer_5BRv", "summary": "The paper presents a method called Locality Alignment, which aims to improve the spatial reasoning capabilities of Vision Language Models (VLMs) by enhancing the local semantic understanding of pre-trained Vision Transformers (ViTs). Specifically,  the authors propose MaskEmbed, which uses a masked reconstruction loss to learn the semantic contributions of each image patch.", "questions": "Please see the weakness.", "limitations": "", "rating": 5, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "1. The paper is overall well-written.\n2.  Locality alignment is efficient, requiring minimal additional computation compared to pre-training, making it a cost-effective solution.\n3. The authors provide theoretical analysis and practical experiments to support their claims.", "weaknesses": "1. I suggest the authors to conduct a thorough analysis of MaskEmbed's sensitivity to hyperparameters. This includes varying mask sizes, patch sampling strategies, and the influence of different reconstruction targets. By understanding these sensitivities, the paper can provide guidelines for applying MaskEmbed effectively across various scenarios. Besides,  including additional evaluations that specifically test the impact of MaskEmbed on global semantic understanding tasks may help to validate whether the method indeed compromises the model's ability to capture long-range dependencies.\n2. The methodology of MaskEmbed involves fine-tuning the encoder to align its output tokens with those of a teacher model when only partial patches of an image are visible. This approach, while innovative, raises concerns about its impact on the encoder's ability to model global interactions and capture long-range dependencies, which are crucial for tasks requiring global semantic understanding.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "bZncCt9TxA", "reviewer": "Reviewer_oNgu", "summary": "This paper proposes improving the performance of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) on region-level visual tasks by enhancing their **locality alignment**. The authors argue that the poor performance of many current VLMs on spatial reasoning tasks can be attributed to the weak locality alignment of vision models, which is caused by image-level supervision and minimal inductive biases. To address this, the paper introduces a post-training approach called **MaskEmbed**, which aims to improve the locality of features. Specifically, MaskEmbed applies the same mask to both the input image of the teacher model and the output features of the encoder model. The masked features are then aligned with the teacher model’s output features through a decoder, thereby enhancing the encoder’s locality alignment. Both visualizations and experimental results demonstrate that MaskEmbed effectively improves locality alignment and boosts performance on downstream tasks.", "questions": "1. How were the scales in **Figure 5** determined? The performance gains appear to be quite small, yet they are magnified in the figure, making it difficult to assess the actual level of improvement provided by this method.", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "The proposed method is relatively simple and provides a notable performance improvement.", "weaknesses": "1. **Issues with the Main Claim**:  \n   The paper’s primary claim is confusing. It begins by hypothesizing that VLMs perform poorly on region-level tasks due to image-level supervision and minimal inductive biases. However, pre-training methods like DINO, despite using image-level supervision, exhibit strong locality, to the point where their features can even be directly used for semantic segmentation maps. This suggests that the initial assumption may be flawed. Additionally, regarding the claim about minimal inductive biases, is the paper referring to the lack of inductive biases in ViT architectures? If so, would using a convolution-based structure like ConvNext or a hierarchical structure like Swin Transformer resolve this issue? The paper fails to sufficiently justify this claim, making the motivation behind **MaskEmbed** unclear. Consequently, **MaskEmbed** may not be effective in the aforementioned scenarios.\n\n2. **Methodological Concerns**:  \n   There are also some issues with the methodology. The goal of **MaskEmbed** is to make the tokens output by the encoder—when the entire image is input—align with the tokens output by the teacher model when only partially visible patches are input. This approach could weaken the encoder's ability to model global interactions, potentially limiting its capacity to capture long-range dependencies. Such a strategy could harm performance on tasks requiring global semantic understanding. Furthermore, this method may also negatively impact region-level tasks if the masking approach crosses a certain threshold, as it constrains the model’s capacity for representation learning. These factors suggest that **MaskEmbed** may be highly sensitive to hyperparameters, which significantly limits its overall contribution.\n\n**Response to the rebuttal**\n\nThank you to the authors for their comprehensive and detailed responses—most of my concerns have been resolved.\n\nHowever, regarding the use of models with stronger locality, such as DINO and MAE, as vision encoders, the authors avoided addressing this issue by pointing out that most VLMs use CLIP/SigCLIP as their vision encoder. Nevertheless, many recent MLLM studies often incorporate mixed vision encoders, as demonstrated in [1,2]. Therefore, it would still be valuable to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method when applied to models with stronger locality.\n\nIn addition, although this work focuses on the VLM domain, its techniques primarily target vision encoders. To better highlight its advantages, I suggest integrating the proposed method into some vision pre-trained models, such as MAE or DINO, and evaluating whether the optimized models exhibit advantages in dense prediction tasks. This would better showcase the contributions of this work.\n\nDespite some minor concerns, I find this to be an interesting study overall, and I have raised my score accordingly.\n\nReferences:\n\n[1] Jiang D, Liu Y, Liu S, et al. From clip to dino: Visual encoders shout in multi-modal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08825, 2023.\n\n[2] Shi M, Liu F, Wang S, et al. Eagle: Exploring the design space for multimodal LLMs with mixture of encoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15998, 2024.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "Rl5F4aoap0", "reviewer": "Reviewer_ARqQ", "summary": "This paper proposes a  MaskEmbed fine-tuning procedure that uses a masked reconstruction loss to improve the path-level semantics of the visual encoder. Experiment results show that the proposed method can improve performance across a range of VLM benchmarks.", "questions": "Please refer to the 'Weaknesses' part.", "limitations": "", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "1. The paper is well-written and easy to follow.\n2. The proposed MaskEmbed training diagram is effective in learning local semantics.", "weaknesses": "1. The authors need to include comparisons and discussions with more methods, such as dBOT[1] and UMG-CLIP[2].\n\na) dBOT[1] employs a distillation strategy similar to the method presented in the paper, so it is necessary to discuss the differences with this method and provide performance comparisons.\n\nb) UMG-CLIP[2] directly incorporates fine-grained annotations to enhance CLIP's Locality Alignment. I am curious whether the proposed method has advantages over this method in some fundamental visual perception benchmarks.  Besides, is it possible to use a similar visualization approach as in UMG-CLIP to further illustrate the locality of the features in MaskEmbed?\n\n2. The experimental comparisons are not sufficient.\n\na) As previously mentioned, it is necessary to supplement more results on visual perception benchmarks.\n\nb) The paper employs a one-stage strategy for training VLMs. As far as I know, the majority of current VLM methods employ a multi-stage training approach, and the mentioned Llava-1.5 does as well, which gives it better performance than the one-stage baseline in this paper. I hope the authors can train the VLM model according to the Llava-1.5 setup and conduct performance comparisons on more benchmarks used in Llava-1.5 (r.f. Benchmarks in Table 3 and Table 4 of Llava-1.5).\n\nc) To my knowledge, the latest method in the Llava series, Llava-OneVision[3], fine-tunes the vision encoder part simultaneously during VLM training. Many other recent methods[4][5] also adopt this setting, making the claim in lines 52-54 somewhat Inadequate. I wonder whether simultaneously fine-tuning the vision encoder could lead to VLMs gaining local semantic understanding, potentially diminishing the advantages of the proposed method.\n\n[1] Exploring target representations for masked autoencoders.\n\n[2] UMG-CLIP: A Unified Multi-Granularity Vision Generalist for Open-World Understanding.\n\n[3] LLaVA-OneVision: Easy Visual Task Transfer.\n\n[4] Qwen2-VL: Enhancing Vision-Language Model’s Perception of the World at Any Resolution.\n\n[5] MiniCPM-V: A GPT-4V Level MLLM on Your Phone.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "f5HLaYYwKq", "reviewer": "Reviewer_XvKA", "summary": "This paper introduces a novel, computationally efficient mask-based self-supervised loss function designed to enhance the local feature representations of a pretrained Vision Transformer (ViT) initially trained on a global, image-level task. This approach aims to improve the ViT's utility for Vision-Language Model (VLM) training. By applying their method across various backbones, the authors demonstrate its generalizability and report gains in patch-level semantic segmentation and across multiple vision-language tasks.", "questions": "In the current setup, the entire embedding sequence is reconstructed during training. Have you considered ablations that reconstruct only unmasked tokens?\n\nWhile I understand your reasoning for masking the teacher, have you explored or considered a comparison with approaches where the student is masked, as in the dBOT framework? \n\n(This one is due to my lack of knowledge about single stage VLMs), Can you give more context on the significance of the VLM benchmark improvements? Some of the relative improvements on Figure 5 are so small that they seem like noise. (but again, it just might be duo to my lack of knowledge)", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 4, "contribution": 4, "strengths": "Simplicity and novelty of the approach, with a clear explanation of the intuition behind the formulation of patch embeddings (g_i) and the task.\n\nDemonstration of general applicability by using a variety of backbones trained on different tasks.\n\nComprehensive evaluation across diverse VLM benchmarks.", "weaknesses": "Ablation studies could be more comprehensive. Some, like the effects of data augmentation and training data scale, feel unnecessary or self-evident. Exploring a broader range of datasets, such as CC3M (diverse) versus IN1k or SAM images (multi-object), could have offered more insightful findings on generalizability.\n\nLimited ablation of the loss function. For example, testing reconstruction of only unmasked tokens rather than the entire embedding sequence could provide valuable insights into the role of different token types in the loss.\n\nComparison with alternative masking strategies is missing. While the rationale for masking in the current way is sound, comparing with an approach like dBOT—where the student rather than the teacher is masked—could have strengthened their case, as dBOT follows a nearly identical pipeline and has shown strong spatial feature learning.\n\ndBOT: Exploring Target Representations for Masked Autoencoders", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Decision: Accept (Poster)