cs.CVAug 15, 2026

Do Visual Grounding Decoders Need Feed-Forward Networks? A Controlled Study over Frozen Vision-Language Features

Authors: Tarun Tomar

Abstract

Do feed-forward networks (FFNs) in visual grounding decoders add essential computation once a pretrained vision-language model has already encoded image and language context? We compare a four-block attention-only decoder (A4), a matched four-block attention-plus-FFN decoder (S4), and an eight-block attention-only parameter control (A8) over frozen VLM features. A4 matches or slightly exceeds S4 on RefCOCOg and Ref-Adv-s. FineCops-Ref reveals a small A4 deficit of 0.52 percentage points at [email protected] (95% CI [0.12, 0.95] in favor of S4), but A8 recovers it and finishes 0.26 points above S4. Official FineCops levels do not show a monotonic increase in the gap. A4 reduces trainable decoder parameters by 44.4% and cached-decoder latency by 10.1%, although end-to-end latency remains backbone-dominated. These results concern the trainable grounding decoder, not a complete attention-only VLM.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables5 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

CardsList
  1. What Happens Before Decoding? Prefill Determines GUI Grounding in VLMs

    May 10, 2026Jiaping Lin, Fei Shen, Junzhe Li +4GUI GroundingVision-Language Grounding

  2. SAGE: Sink-Aware Guided Emphasis for Visual Grounding in Vision-Language Decoders

    Oct 8, 2026Jeonghyo Song, YoungJoon YooAttention Intervention in VLMsVision-Language Grounding

  3. GroundAnything: Reconciling Parallel Decoding with Precise Visual Grounding at Flash Speed

    Sep 30, 2026Qize Yu, Lianrui Fan, Bowen Ping +19Efficient VLM InferenceVision-Language Grounding