The ratio of outlier parameters in language pre-training models and vision pre-training models differs significantly, making cross-modality (language and vision) inherently more challenging than cross-domain adaptation. As a result, many prior studies have focused on cross-domain transfer rather than attempting to bridge language and vision modalities, assuming that language pre-trained models are unsuitable for downstream visual tasks due to disparate parameter spaces. Contrary to this assumption, we show that adding a bridge training stage as a modality adaptation learner can effectively align Large Language Model (LLM) parameters with vision tasks. Specifically, we propose a simple yet powerful solution random label bridge training that requires no manual labeling and helps LLM parameters adapt to vision foundation tasks. Moreover, our findings reveal that partial bridge training is often advantageous, as certain layers in LLMs exhibit strong foundational properties that remain beneficial even without fine-tuning for visual tasks. This surprising discovery opens up new avenues for leveraging language pre-trained parameters directly within vision models and highlights the potential of partial bridge training as a practical pathway to cross-modality adaptation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: In cross-domain adaptation, the data type remains the same, though domains may vary in style or distribution. In contrast, cross-modality adaptation involves fundamentally different feature spaces, alongside variations in style or distribution.
Figure 2: Outlier parameters and weight distributions in models trained on different modalities. Language-pretrained GPT-2 shows a markedly heavier-tailed distribution with numerous large-magnitude “Outlier” weights, whereas vision-pretrained ViT and GPT-2 structure model trained on images exhibit fewer outliers and narrower spreads.
Figure 3: Train and test acc. curves for pretrained vs. scratch GPT-2 on CIFAR-10 using varying random label proportions (0%, 15%, 30%, 100%). Pretrained models consistently show higher accuracy and faster convergence, indicating enhanced robustness to label noise.
Model
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
ImageNet-1K
Train-acc1
Test-acc1
Train-acc1
Test-acc1
Train-acc1
Test-acc1
Scratch-GPT-2
98.7
86.0
98.8
58.0
56.4
66.5
Pretrained-GPT-2
99.2 +0.5
87.1+1.1
99.1 +0.3
60.4+2.4
59.2 +2.8
68.8+2.3
Scratch-LLAMA3.2-1B
99.3
79.7
99.7
49.3
66.3
64.0
Pretrained-LLAMA3.2-1B
99.6+0.3
89.4+9.7
99.8+0.1
64.7+15.4
73.8+7.5
67.7+3.7
Table 1: Comparison of language-pretrained GPT-2 weights and scratch-initialized GPT-2 models on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and ImageNet-1K for image classification. ( Note : we only train GPT-2 on ImageNet-1k for 150 Epochs and LLAMA3.2-1B for 50 Epochs because of resource limitations.)
Model
Random Ratio
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
Train-acc1
Test-acc1
Train-acc1
Test-acc1
Scratch-GPT-2
15%
97.4
76.0
98.5
45.2
30%
75.4
67.8
98.2
32.5
100%
34.2
2.5
65.9
0.9
Pretrained-GPT-2
15%
98.6+1.2
77.2+1.2
99.0+0.5
48.1+2.9
30%
97.9+22.5
68.7+0.9
98.9+0.7
33.7+1.2
Table 2: Performance comparison of language-pretrained and scratch-initialized GPT-2 models under varying ratios of random labels on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. Darker “ ” and “ ” indicates higher Train-acc1 and Test-acc1, respectively.
Figure 4: Loss landscape on CIFAR-10. We visualize a 2D cross-section of the high-dimensional loss surface by plotting L(θ0+αd1+βd2) , where d1=θT−θ0 is the training direction and d2 is a random direction orthogonal to d1 (both per-layer normalized). The X-axis and Y-axis correspond to the coefficients α and β , respectively (height/color indicates loss). Top : Correct Labels Training. Bottom : 100% Random Labels Training. Left : Scratch GPT-2. Right : Pretrained GPT-2.
Figure 5: t-SNE embeddings for pretrained (top) and scratch-initialized (bottom) GPT-2 models on CIFAR-10 under 100% random labels. Left : Before training, both appear partly disordered. Right : After training, the pretrained model achieves far tighter, more coherent clusters, indicating superior feature separability compared to the scratch model.
Figure 6: Overview of our two-stage Language Bias Bridge Learning framework. In Stage 1, the pretrained LLM is adapted to the target modality under random labels, In Stage 2, a lightweight classifier refines these representations on real labels.
Figure 7: Layer-wise neuron activation ratios for image samples in GPT-2 models. For each block ℓ , we record the MLP post-GELU activations A(ℓ)(x)∈RT×dmlp on real images, compute token-averaged neuron responses, and count neuron k as activated by image x if aˉk(ℓ)(x)>0 . Left : before training. Middle : random-label bridge training. Right : correct-label bridge training. Training increases rℓ , indicating greater utilization of MLP capacity for visual inputs.
wd=0.05
wd=0.1
wd=0.2
lr=5e−4
15.1/31.0+15.9
10.5/30.3+19.8
10.3/23.5+13.2
lr=3e−4
17.2/32.4+15.2
13.9/31.1+17.2
12.6/24.8+12.2
lr=1e−3
17.4/35.0+17.6
16.6/33.3+16.7
13.7/26.8+13.1
Table 3: Hyperparameter sensitivity study. We sweep learning rate (lr) and weight decay (wd) under the same training protocol and report linear-probe test acc1 on CIFAR-100 (%). Each entry is reported as w/o LBBT / LBBT ; we additionally report the absolute gain as subscript.
Paradigm
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
TinyImageNet-200
ImageNet-1K
Train-acc1
Train-acc1
Train-acc1
Train-acc1
Bridge Training
34.2
65.9
94.2
53.7
Language Bias Bridge Training
93.9 +59.7
98.7 +32.8
95.3 +1.1
56.4 +2.8
Table 4: Random-label bridge training across datasets of varying scale. We report training top-1 accuracy ( Train-acc1 ) on the random bridge labels. Bridge Training denotes training the same GPT-2 architecture on the visual dataset with 100% random labels, starting from randomly initialized weights. Language Bias Bridge Training (LBBT) uses the identical random-label bridge objective, data, and hyperparameters, but initializes from language-pretrained GPT-2 weights.
Paradigm
LLM Backbone
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
TinyImageNet-200
Train-acc1
Train-acc1
Train-acc1
Bridge Training
Qwen3-8B
88.2
84.2
90.0
Language Bias Bridge Training
Qwen3-8B
95.9+7.7
93.3+9.1
92.4+2.4
Bridge Training
Qwen3-14B
91.6
88.3
91.7
Language Bias Bridge Training
Qwen3-14B
97.9+6.3
97.7+9.4
94.3+3.4
Table 5: LBBT’s Benefits also hold when scale up to larger LLMs.
Model
AP
AP50
AP75
APs
APm
APL
DETR
36.2
58.0
38.4
15.0
39.1
53.8
Language Bias DETR
38.3 +2.1
59.2 +1.2
39.6 +1.2
16.6 +1.6
41.7 +2.6
54.2 +0.4
Table 6: Object Detection Results on COCO 2017 Dataset.
Method
Train - acc1
Test - acc1
Unstructured SSL Methods
Language Bias Bridge Training
21.8
33.4
Rotation Image
25.1
32.2
Structured SSL Methods
MAE
24.5
30.7
SimCLR
16.2
26.2
Table 7: Linear - probe image - classification accuracy on CIFAR-100. (all pretrained on imagenet100 first.)
Figure 8: Partial Bridge Training results under both random-label and correct-label settings. Updating only the first 2 layers already matches the performance of training all layers, and training the first 5 layers surpasses it.
Layers
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
Train-acc1
Test-acc1
Train-acc1
Test-acc1
Correct Labels :
All Layers
99.2
87.1
99.1
60.4
First 1 Layer
90.2
73.9
88.5
49.4
First 2 Layers
97.5
82.6
97.9
54.7
First 5 Layers
98.9
85.5
99.3
59.7
Table 8: Partial Bridge Training. Darker “ ” and “ ” indicates higher Train-acc1 and Test-acc1, respectively. Note that under random-label training, the test accuracy is naturally low because the labels have no true class semantics; hence, the training accuracy is the primary indicator of model’s fitting ability.
Figure 9: Train and test loss curves for DETR. Language-pretrained initialization accelerates convergence and lowers final loss, highlighting its benefit for dense vision tasks.
Model
AED20K
Pascal
miou(ss)
miou(ms)
miou(ss)
miou(ms)
Segmenter - T - Mask/16
37.8
39.1
44.9
45.5
Language Bias Segmenter - T - Mask/16
38.5+0.7
39.5+0.4
46.7+1.8
47.4+1.9
Table 9: Semantic Segmentation Results on AED20K and Pascal Context.
Model
LLM Backbone
SQA
TextVQA
GQA
MM-Vet
Scratch-gpt2-encoder-LLaVA1.5-7B
Vicuna-7B
65.5
42.7
38.6
11.1
Pretrained-gpt2-encoder-LLaVA1.5-7B
Vicuna-7B
66.7 +1.2
44.2 +1.5
41.2 +2.6
18.5 +7.4
Scratch-gpt2-encoder-LLaVA1.6-7B
Mistral-7B
17.7
68.5
47.8
40.9
Pretrained-gpt2-encoder-LLaVA1.6-7B
Mistral-7B
21.0 +3.3
69.1 +0.6
49.3 +1.5
43.2 +2.3
Scratch-gpt2-encoder-LLaVA1.6-13B
Vicuna-13B
22.5
70.3
51.9
44.3
Pretrained-gpt2-encoder-LLaVA1.6-13B
Vicuna-13B
24.6 +2.1
71.8 +1.5
56.1 +4.2
48.7 +4.4
Table 10: Comparison on three Multimodal VQA and one Reasoning Benchmarks across different model scales and LLM backbones. ( Pretrained rows are highlighted; subscript denotes absolute gain over the corresponding scratch setting. )
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 10: Weight Parameter Distribution. We compare weight distributions of GPT-2 models trained from scratch ( blue ) and with language-pretrained weights ( orange ) under correct labels (left) and 100% random labels (right). The pretrained model displays a smoother, more heavily tailed distribution, highlighting its ability to adapt to visual data—even with noisy, non-semantic supervision, thanks to latent linguistic priors.
Figure 11: Comparison of weight parameter distributions and outlier counts. For models trained on either random or correct labels, starting from either a pretrained initialization or from scratch. Even under random labels (top row), the pretrained model continues to exhibit stronger performance than its from-scratch counterpart despite producing more high-magnitude outlier parameters. With correct labels (bottom row), the pretrained initialization still outperforms the from-scratch model, though outlier occurrences remain more frequent in the pretrained setup than in the randomly initialized one.
Figure 12: Train and test acc. curves for pretrained vs. scratch GPT-2 on CIFAR-100.
Figure 13: More Partial Training Ablation studies on layers.
Figure 14: Fine-grained parameter outlier and distribution comparison.
Model
mAP
Pass@1
Recall@1
NDCG@1
Pass@5
Recall@5
NDCG@5
Bridge Training
72.3
72.1
72.1
72.1
71.7
88.1
81.3
Language Bias Bridge Training
87.2
86.6
86.6
86.6
86.5
93.5
90.5
Appendix
Table 11: Image Retrieval Results on Tiny-ImageNet200.
Layers
CIFAR-10
Train-acc1
Test-acc1
Last Layer
43.1
5.2
Last 14 Layers
87.9
6.3
First Layer
69.9
4.3
All Layers
93.9
6.3
First 5 Layers
96.5
6.7
Appendix
Table 12: Extend ablation study on Random Label Partial Bridge Training. Darker “ ” indicates higher Train-acc1 and Test-acc1, respectively. Note that under random-label training, the test accuracy is naturally low because the labels have no true class semantics; hence, the training accuracy is the primary indicator of model’s fitting ability.
Model
Imagenet100
CIFAR-100
CIFAR-10
Train-acc1
Test-acc1
Train-acc1
Test-acc1
Train-acc1
Test-acc1
Correct Label
Pretrained-GPT-2
86.6
76.2
99.1
60.4
99.2
87.1
Pretrained-Chronos-t5
78.7
79.7
94.5
58.1
98.3
88.2
Random Label
Pretrained-GPT-2
94.1
1.5
98.7
0.8
93.9
6.3
Appendix
Table 13: Comparison between Language Pretrained and Time Series Pretrained Bias.
Paradigm
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
Test-acc1
Test-acc1
w/o Bridge Training
62.7
35.0
Bridge Training
74.2
49.1
Language Bias Bridge Training
82.3
56.3
Appendix
Table 14: Linear probing image classification performance across CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. All models are random label bridge trained on TinyImagenet-200 first.
Metric
Pretrained GPT2
Scratch GPT2
Eigenvalue decay rate
-11.603
-3.691
Kurtosis of eigenvalue distribution
14.511
-1.409
Trace of Hessian
305,404
20,785
Spectral gap
207,779.44
226.10
Participation ratio
0.336
0.778
Noise sensitivity AUC
-0.011
0.003
Appendix
Table 15: Quantitave analysis of loss landscape between Pretrained GPT2 and Scratch GPT2.
The visual world offers a critical axis for advancing foundation models beyond language. Despite growing interest in this direction, the design space for native multimodal models remains opaque. We provide empirical clarity through controlled, from-scratch pretraining experiments, isolating the factors that govern multimodal pretraining without interference from language pretraining. We adopt the Transfusion framework, using next-token prediction for language and diffusion for vision, to train on diverse data including text, video, image-text pairs, and even action-conditioned video. Our experiments yield four key insights: (i) Representation Autoencoder (RAE) provides an optimal unified visual representation by excelling at both visual understanding and generation; (ii) visual and language data are complementary and yield synergy for downstream capabilities; (iii) unified multimodal pretraining leads naturally to world modeling, with capabilities emerging from general training; and (iv) Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) enables efficient and effective multimodal scaling while naturally inducing modality specialization. Through IsoFLOP analysis, we compute scaling laws for both modalities and uncover a scaling asymmetry: vision is significantly more data-hungry than language. We demonstrate that the MoE architecture harmonizes this scaling asymmetry by providing the high model capacity required by language while accommodating the data-intensive nature of vision, paving the way for truly unified multimodal models.
The integration of Large Language Model (LLM) blocks with Vision Transformers (ViTs) holds significant promise for vision-only tasks by leveraging the rich semantic knowledge and reasoning capabilities of LLMs. However, a fundamental challenge lies in the inherent modality mismatch between the text-centric pre-training of LLMs and the vision-centric training of ViTs. Direct fusion often fails to fully exploit the LLM's potential and suffers from unstable finetuning. Consequently, prior works typically keep LLM blocks frozen while learning only the vision components. To address these challenges, we introduce Language-Adapted Vision Enhancer (LAVIE), a novel framework that bridges this modality gap through a synergistic pre-training strategy. LAVIE co-adapts a ViT backbone and an LLM fusion block by (1) employing Masked Auto-Encoding (MAE) to pre-train the ViT for richer visual representations, and (2) concurrently training Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) layers within the LLM block using the same MAE objective. This joint optimization guides the ViT to produce LLM-aligned features and the LLM to effectively interpret visual information. We demonstrate through extensive experiments that LAVIE significantly improves performance in various downstream vision tasks, offering an effective and efficient way to enhance visual understanding using frozen LLM knowledge. Code is available at https://github.com/selimkuzucu/LAVIE
Selim Kuzucu, Muhammad Ferjad Naeem, Anna Kukleva +2
Max Planck Institute for Informatics, SIC · Google
Large Vision Language Models (VLMs) excel at general visual reasoning but experience significant performance degradation when deployed in novel domains that exhibit substantial distribution shifts from their pretraining data. Existing domain adaptation methods rely on finetuning standard VLM components; however, depending on which components are updated, these approaches either limit the model's ability to learn domain-specific representations or cause catastrophic forgetting of previously acquired capabilities. We introduce Vision Contextualized Probing (VisCoP), a parameter-efficient adaptation framework that augments the VLM vision encoder with a compact set of learnable visual probes. By learning domain-specific visual representations through these probes while requiring only minimal updates to pretrained model components, VisCoP effectively adapts to new domains without sacrificing existing knowledge. We evaluate VisCoP across three challenging adaptation settings: cross-view (exocentric to egocentric), cross-modal (RGB to depth), and cross-task (human understanding to robot control). Across all scenarios, VisCoP consistently outperforms existing domain adaptation strategies, achieving superior target-domain performance while preserving the pretrained VLM's capabilities on the source domain. These results demonstrate that lightweight visual probing provides an effective and robust solution for adapting VLMs under substantial distribution shifts. Code, models, and evaluation protocols are available at https://github.com/dominickrei/VisCoP.
Dominick Reilly, Manish Kumar Govind, Le Xue +1
University of North Carolina at Charlotte · Elorian AI