Vision Transformers (ViTs) based vision foundation models (VFMs) have achieved remarkable performance across diverse vision tasks, but suffer from quadratic complexity that limits scalability to long sequences. Existing linear attention approaches for ViTs are typically trained from scratch, requiring substantial computational resources, while linearization-based methods developed for large language model decoders do not transfer well to ViTs. To address these challenges, we propose ViT-AdaLA, a novel framework for effectively adapting and transferring prior knowledge from VFMs to linear attention ViTs. ViT-AdaLA consists of three stages: attention alignment, feature alignment, and supervised fine-tuning. In the attention alignment stage, we align vanilla linear attention with the original softmax-based attention in each block to approximate the behavior of softmax attention. However, residual approximation errors inevitably accumulate across layers. We mitigate this by fine-tuning the linearized ViT to align its final-layer features with a frozen softmax VFM teacher. Finally, the adapted prior knowledge is transferred to downstream tasks through supervised fine-tuning. Extensive experiments on classification and segmentation tasks demonstrate the effectiveness and generality of ViT-AdaLA over various state-of-the-art linear attention counterpart.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between training-from-scratch and linearization paradigms for ViTs with linear attention. Training-from-scratch linear attention paradigms focus on designing accurate attention approximation methods, which typically require large-scale pretraining to acquire strong prior knowledge. In contrast, ViT linearization leverages an off-the-shelf pretrained ViT, substantially reducing the need for extensive pretraining.
Figure 2: Comparison of decoder and encoder–decoder architectures. In decoder-based LLMs, the LLM serves as both the feature extractor and the target generator. In contrast, in vision models, ViTs function solely as feature extractors, while a separate task-specific head is responsible for target generation.
Figure 3: Efficiency comparison of different attentions, including peak memory and GFLOPS varying with sequence length. Only attention module is benchmarked in these experiments. “Vanilla” indicates the vanilla linear attention ( Katharopoulos et al., 2020 ) .
Figure 4: ViT-AdaLA consists of three stages: attention alignment, feature alignment, and supervised fine-tuning. First, softmax attention is approximated by tuning only the linear attention modules. Second, to mitigate residual approximation errors that accumulate across layers, the feature alignment stage finetunes the entire linearized model by aligning its final-layer representations with those of the original softmax-based teacher. Finally, supervised fine-tuning is performed to transfer the adapted prior knowledge to downstream tasks.
Figure 5: Linear attention architecture and Stage 1 training loss comparison with LoLCATS ( SM : softmax; ⊕ : concatenation). LoLCATS approximates the attention output based on Hedgehog ( Zhang et al., 2024 ) by tuning only two additional mapping modules applied to the queries and keys individually. In contrast, we tune all query, key, and value weights to approximate the attention output, which is both more efficient and more effective than the original LoLCATS approach.
Figure 6: Visualization of PCA-projected features from the final layer of DINOv2-L. We compare the original softmax-based features with those produced by ViT-AdaLA and Monarch attention ( Yaras et al., 2025 ) by projecting them to three channels using PCA. The results indicate that ViT-AdaLA better preserves the prior feature knowledge of the VFM. We provide more visualization results in the App. B .
Backbone
Res.
Params
FLOPS
Peak Mem.
Throughput
Top-1 Acc.
(M)
(G)
(GB)
(imgs/s)
(%)
Softmax ( Oquab et al., 2024 )
DINOv2-L
5122
304.20
310.60
1.3181
36.52
86.8
Hedgehog ( Zhang et al., 2024 )
DINOv2-L
5122
305.77
265.41 ↓14.5%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
37.44 ↑2.5%
58.8
LoLCATS ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
DINOv2-L
5122
305.77
265.41 ↓14.5%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
37.44 ↑2.5%
61.6
Linformer ( Wang et al., 2020 )
DINOv2-L
5122
305.77
262.19 ↓15.6%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
45.41 ↑25.3%
68.9
Performer ( Choromanski et al., 2021 )
DINOv2-L
5122
304.20
265.41 ↓14.6%
1.2164 ↓7.7%
36.48 ↑0.1%
75.2
Table 1: Top-1 fine-tuning accuracy comparison on ImageNet-1K under different vision foundation models with multiple linear attention baselines. We reproduce all baselines to ensure a fair comparison. The classification head is a single linear layer for all the methods.
Backbone
Res.
Params
FLOPS
Peak Mem.
Throughput
mIoU
(M)
(G)
(GB)
(imgs/s)
(%)
Softmax ( Oquab et al., 2024 )
DINOv2-L
5122
304.20
310.60
1.3181
36.52
56.73
Hedgehog ( Zhang et al., 2024 )
DINOv2-L
5122
305.77
265.41 ↓14.5%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
37.44 ↑2.5%
22.52
LoLCATS ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
DINOv2-L
5122
305.77
265.41 ↓14.5%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
37.44 ↑2.5%
17.42
Linformer ( Wang et al., 2020 )
DINOv2-L
5122
305.77
262.19 ↓15.6%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
45.41 ↑25.3%
18.82
Performer ( Choromanski et al., 2021 )
DINOv2-L
5122
304.20
265.41 ↓14.6%
1.2164 ↓7.7%
36.48 ↑0.1%
41.16
Table 2: mIoU fine-tuning comparison on ADE20K under different vision foundation models with multiple linear attention baselines. We reproduce all baselines to ensure a fair comparison. The segmentation head is Mask2former for all the methods.
Table 9
Backbone
Res.
Params
FLOPS
Peak Mem.
Throughput
mIoU
(M)
(G)
(GB)
(imgs/s)
(%)
Softmax ( Oquab et al., 2024 )
DINOv2-L
5122
304.20
310.60
1.3181
36.52
74.86
Hedgehog ( Zhang et al., 2024 )
DINOv2-L
5122
305.77
265.41 ↓14.5%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
37.44 ↑2.5%
43.97
LoLCATS ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
DINOv2-L
5122
305.77
265.41 ↓14.5%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
37.44 ↑2.5%
34.71
Linformer ( Wang et al., 2020 )
DINOv2-L
5122
305.77
262.19 ↓15.6%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
45.41 ↑25.3%
37.24
Performer ( Choromanski et al., 2021 )
DINOv2-L
5122
304.20
265.41 ↓14.6%
1.2164 ↓7.7%
36.48 ↑0.1%
43.11
Table 4: mIoU fine-tuning comparison on Cityscapes under different input resolutions (512 vs. 1024) based on DINOv2-L. We reproduce all baselines to ensure a fair comparison. The segmentation head is Mask2former for all the methods.
Figure 8: Training loss comparison of different linear attention variants in Stage 1 on DINOv2-L. To ensure a fair comparison, the query, key, and value weights are tuned in every layer for each baseline. Vanilla linear attention exhibits superior approximation performance compared to the other variants.
Figure 9: Resolution scalability analysis on the Cityscapes dataset in terms of (a) mIoU, (b) throughput, and (c) peak memory.
Figure 10: ADE20K performance across different Stage 2 training epochs for DINOv2-L.
Figure 11: ADE20K performance of adapting the task model or the VFM for DINOv2-L.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Epochs
4
DINOv2
SigLIP
CLIP
IN-1K
Cls
seg
30
10
15
20
10
20
Batch size
32
16
8
Learning rate
1e-2
1e-3
1e-4
Weight decay
0.05
Learning schedule
fixed
Polynomial (decay factor of 0.9)
Appendix
Table 5: Hyperparameters of different training stages and VFMs.
Figure 12: Stage 1 loss comparison across linear-attention activation functions. We compare four activations: softmax, softplus, ReLU, and ELU+1.
Stages
Stage 1 Time (per epoch)
Stage 2 Time (per epoch)
DINOv2-L
4min 37s
10h 48min 46s
SigLIP-L
4min 19s
11h 22min 15s
CLIP-L
5min 56s
11h 09min 21s
IN1K-L
4min 34s
10h 02min 54s
Mean
4min 51s
10h 55min 41s
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of training efficiency across various Visual Foundation Models (VFMs) during Stages 1 and 2. Stage 1 is conducted using the COCO dataset, while Stage 2 utilizes ImageNet-22K for large-scale pretraining. All the experiments are conducted on 8 H100s.
Method
ADE20K (mIoU)
Cityscapes (mIoU)
IN1K (Acc.)
Softmax (DINOv2-B)
53.93
79.73
84.93
ViT-AdaLA (DINOv2-B)
51.46
74.60
84.37
Appendix
Table 7: Performance comparison using DINOv2-B on ADE20K, Cityscapes and ImageNet-1K. We pretrained our ViT-AdaLA (DINOv2-B) for 40 epochs.
Method
ADE20K (mIoU)
Cityscapes (mIoU)
IN1K (Acc.)
Softmax (IN1K-L)
50.83
74.86
85.66
ViT-AdaLA (IN1K-L)
49.75
72.40
84.23
Vanilla Linear Attention (train from scratch, IN1K-L)
25.80
45.09
65.72
Appendix
Table 8: Performance comparison of training-from-scratch and on ADE20K, Cityscapes, and IN1K. Our ViT-AdaLA is pretrained for 20 epochs (Stage 2) on ImageNet-22K, whereas the vanilla linear-attention baseline is pretrained from scratch on ImageNet-1K for 200 epochs to ensure a fair comparison.
Method
Resolution
Accuracy (IN1K)
mIoU (ADE20K)
CLIP-L (tune all)
512 × 512
85.5
42.85
CLIP-L (only tune QKV)
512 × 512
82.5
35.41
DINOv2-L (tune all)
512 × 512
86.0
55.55
DINOv2-L (only tune QKV)
512 × 512
76.4
48.82
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison of tuning strategies on CLIP-L and DINOv2-L at 512 × 512 resolution.
Backbone
Res.
Params
FLOPS
Peak Mem.
Throughput
Top-1 Acc.
(M)
(G)
(GB)
(imgs/s)
(%)
Softmax ( Oquab et al., 2024 )
CLIP-L
5122
304.20
310.60
1.3181
36.52
86.8
Hedgehog ( Zhang et al., 2024 )
CLIP-L
5122
305.77
265.41 ↓14.5%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
37.44 ↑2.5%
67.4
LoLCATS ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
CLIP-L
5122
305.77
265.41 ↓14.5%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
37.44 ↑2.5%
67.21
Linformer ( Wang et al., 2020 )
CLIP-L
5122
305.77
262.19 ↓15.6%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
45.41 ↑25.3%
56.8
Performer ( Choromanski et al., 2021 )
CLIP-L
5122
304.20
265.41 ↓14.6%
1.2164 ↓7.7%
36.48 ↑0.1%
69.9
Appendix
Table 10: Top-1 fine-tuning accuracy comparison on ImageNet-1K under CLIP-L with multiple linear attention baselines. We reproduce all baselines to ensure a fair comparison. The classification head is a single linear layer for all the methods.
Backbone
Res.
Params
FLOPS
Peak Mem.
Throughput
mIoU
(M)
(G)
(GB)
(imgs/s)
(%)
Softmax ( Oquab et al., 2024 )
IN1K ViT-L
5122
304.15
310.60
1.3181
36.52
65.11
Hedgehog ( Zhang et al., 2024 )
IN1K ViT-L
5122
305.72
265.41 ↓14.5%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
37.44 ↑2.5%
37.69
LoLCATS ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
IN1K ViT-L
5122
305.72
265.41 ↓14.5%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
37.44 ↑2.5%
25.04
Linformer ( Wang et al., 2020 )
IN1K ViT-L
5122
305.72
262.19 ↓15.6%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
45.41 ↑25.3%
17.30
Performer ( Choromanski et al., 2021 )
IN1K ViT-L
5122
304.15
265.41 ↓14.6%
1.2164 ↓7.7%
36.48 ↑0.1%
39.44
Appendix
Table 11: mIoU fine-tuning comparison on Cityscapes under different input resolutions (512 vs. 1024) based on IN1K ViT-L and SigLIP-L. We reproduce all baselines to ensure a fair comparison. The segmentation head is Mask2former for all the methods.
Backbone
Res.
Params
FLOPS
Peak Mem.
Throughput
mIoU
(M)
(G)
(GB)
(imgs/s)
(%)
Softmax ( Oquab et al., 2024 )
IN1K ViT-L
5122
304.20
310.60
1.3181
36.52
50.83
Hedgehog ( Zhang et al., 2024 )
IN1K ViT-L
5122
305.77
265.41 ↓14.5%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
37.44 ↑2.5%
25.15
LoLCATS ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
IN1K ViT-L
5122
305.77
265.41 ↓14.5%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
37.44 ↑2.5%
20.17
Linformer ( Wang et al., 2020 )
IN1K ViT-L
5122
305.77
262.19 ↓15.6%
1.2221 ↓7.3%
45.41 ↑25.3%
11.49
Performer ( Choromanski et al., 2021 )
IN1K ViT-L
5122
304.20
265.41 ↓14.6%
1.2164 ↓7.7%
36.48 ↑0.1%
31.01
Appendix
Table 12: mIoU fine-tuning comparison on ADE20K under ViT-IN1K and SigLIP with multiple linear attention baselines. We reproduce all baselines to ensure a fair comparison. The segmentation head is Mask2former for all the methods.
Figure 13: Visualization of PCA-projected features from the final layer of DINOv2-L. Original softmax features, ViT-AdaLA (ours) and Monarch Attention features are compared by projecting to three channels using PCA. These results indicate that ViT-AdaLA can learn more prior knowledge from the original VFM.
Figure 14: Visualization of PCA-projected features from the final layer of DINOv2-L. We ablate the Stages 1 and 2 training procedures and visualize the resulting PCA features for comparison. The results indicate that Stage 2 is crucial for extracting prior knowledge from VFMs, while the inclusion of Stage 1 further enhances this knowledge transfer.
Linear Vision Transformers (ViTs) are designed to replace the attention in Softmax ViTs with the linear-complexity attention operator for more efficient token routing, but they require from-scratch pre-training and typically underperform the original Softmax version. How to initialize linear ViTs both efficiently and effectively still remains unclear. In this work, we explicitly ask: given that most foundation ViTs are built on the mainstream Softmax attention, can linear ViTs benefit from their pre-trained weights? Recent works on Attention Transfer show that attention is the effective transferable component between Softmax ViTs, suggesting attention alone suffices for such reuse. However, we find the opposite for Softmax-to-linear transfer. The attention weights are operator-specific: copying them barely helps, and is sometimes even worse than random initialization. Instead, the attention's token routing behavior can be recovered through distillation with a proper loss design, letting linear ViTs reduce the gap and even match Softmax ones. In contrast, the MLP weights, which carry the learned representation, are operator-agnostic: they can be transferred by simple direct copying, which already carries most of the benefit of the pre-trained weights. Thus, copying MLPs can serve as an effective foundation for Softmax-to-linear transfer: paired with the distilled attention, linear ViTs eventually close the remaining gap and even surpass Softmax ones. These findings hold consistently across various linear ViT variants, different model sizes, and diverse datasets. We hope this study deepens the understanding of reusing pre-trained weights across attention operators: copy what stays the same and distill what differs, to recover the benefit across the Softmax-to-linear boundary.
Huaiyuan Qin, Muli Yang, Gabriel James Goenawan +9
Institute of Advanced Intelligence and Computing (IAIC), A*STAR, Singapore · Nanyang Technological University · ST Engineering Geo-Insights, Singapore +3
With the rise of large-scale foundation models, efficiently adapting them to downstream tasks remains a central challenge. Linear probing, which freezes the backbone and trains a lightweight head, is computationally efficient but often restricted to last-layer representations. We show that task-relevant information is distributed across the network hierarchy rather than encoded solely in the last layers. To leverage this distribution of information, we apply an attentive probing mechanism that dynamically fuses representations from all layers of a Vision Transformer. This attentive layer fusion (ALF) learns to identify the most relevant layers for a target task and combines low-level structural cues with high-level semantic abstractions. Across 20 diverse datasets and multiple pretrained foundation models, ALF achieves consistent, substantial gains over standard linear probes. Attention heatmaps further reveal that tasks different from the pre-training domain benefit most from intermediate representations. Overall, our findings underscore the value of intermediate layers and demonstrate a principled, task-aware approach for unlocking their potential for probing-based adaptation.
Laure Ciernik, Marco Morik, Lukas Thede +4
Machine Learning Group, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany · Hector Fellow Academy, Karlsruhe, Germany · Berlin Institute for the Foundations of Learning and Data (BIFOLD), Berlin, Germany +7
Vision-language models (VLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities but suffer from substantial computational overhead, as vision tokens dominate the input sequence. This motivates vision token compression as a key direction to alleviate the burden. However, with the emergence of hybrid architectures incorporating linear attention (\eg, Qwen3.5), prior methods designed for softmax attention struggle to generalize. Our analysis reveals that both attention- and similarity-based approaches suffer notable performance degradation, underscoring the urgent need for compression methods tailored to this regime. To this end, we propose V-CoLA, an efficient training-free token compression framework specifically designed for linear attention. V-CoLA introduces a novel uniqueness-aware importance criterion for identifying critical vision tokens, coupled with an adaptive token merging strategy that performs compression. All components are optimized at the implementation level to remain compatible with the chunk-wise parallelism of linear attention, ensuring strong practical value. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of V-CoLA: it achieves 99.5% of the original performance with only 50.0% of vision tokens, and over 88.0% with as few as 12.5%, while delivering a 1.86× to 6.15× prefill speedup.