Organizations: State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University · Xiaomi Corporation, LLM-Core Team · Department of Computer Science, The University of Hong Kong
Hybrid attention dominates frontier LLMs, yet Vision Transformers (ViTs) in multimodal LLMs lack a satisfactory hybrid design, with no consensus on why certain attention patterns work better. To fill this gap, we study ViT attention heads and find they differentiate into object- and background-specialist roles, a pattern most pronounced under full attention; we call this Semantic Head Specialization (SHS). We propose SHS-Index to quantify this specialization, show that it distinguishes full-attention from chunk-window ViTs, and find that it strongly tracks downstream benchmark performance. We then identify three structural factors that shape SHS---window interaction, token serialization, and local softmax allocation---and use them as design principles for hybrid attention. Guided by these factors, we design Ariadne Attention, a hybrid that matches full attention on 22 image and video tasks at 6.5x less attention compute. Our findings establish head specialization as a measurable property for diagnosing and designing principled hybrid ViT attention at the multimodal-LLM scale.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: SHS-Index separates ViT attention designs. Across 16 open-source visual encoders and VLMs, SHS-Index cleanly separates full-attention and chunk-window ViTs. Within Qwen2.5-VL, changing the LLM size from 3B to 72B leaves SHS-Index nearly unchanged, indicating that the signal comes from the ViT attention design.
Figure 2: Semantic Head Specialization (SHS) in ViT attention heads. First column: input image (top) and a foreground (blue) / background (green) segmentation (bottom); each ViT token is labeled foreground or background by the dominant region within its image patch. Columns 2–4: received-attention heatmaps for a representative head at two ViT layers (L11, L17) across three attention designs. Under Full Attention, heads specialize: bright regions concentrate on the foreground object, revealing clear object/background differentiation. Our Ariadne attention preserves this specialization. Under Chunk Window attention (Qwen2.5-VL style), heads show grid-like window-boundary artifacts and fail to differentiate foreground from background.
Figure 3: Token arrangements on a 4×8 patch grid ( 2×4 blocks). Numbers indicate position in the 1D sequence; bold borders delimit 2×2 blocks. (a) Raster-scan. (b) Qwen2.5-VL chunk window: blocks grouped into non-overlapping windows (dashed red line); token 15 and token 16 are spatially adjacent but in separate windows. (c) Row-major: all blocks serialized left-to-right, top-to-bottom for SWA. (d) Column-major: blocks serialized top-to-bottom, left-to-right. Ariadne alternates (c) and (d) across layers (§ 4.1 ).
Figure 4: Why the 2D token ordering is incompatible with SWA. Numbers indicate position in the 1D sequence. (a) Chunk-2D: neighbors 16–23 map to the top of Window 1, spatially far from the anchor . (b) Row-major 1D: nearly all neighbors fall into surrounding rows, forming a coherent neighborhood.
Figure 5: SHS-Index across structural configurations. The controlled variants differ only in the local attention structure while sharing the same backbone and training recipe. SHS-Index rises under the structure changes validated above, with Full+Sink shown as the highest-SHS diagnostic point and chunk-2D as the lowest.
Figure 6: SHS-Index and benchmark quality. Across the eight diagnostic configurations, SHS-Index correlates with the corrected 22-task average ( r=0.858 , p=0.006 ; dashed line = 8-config linear fit). Ariadne is shown as a later design point and is not used to define the primary fit.
Figure 7: The 4-row-3-col block architecture of Ariadne Attention. Each block contains 4 row-major SWA + sink layers, 3 column-major SWA + sink layers, and 1 full-attention layer; four repeats form the 32-layer ViT.
Figure 8: Attention compute vs. image-task quality at 8962 . Ariadne ( ★ ), an SHS-informed hybrid, comes within about 0.5 points of full attention at 6.5× lower attention FLOPs.
Image tasks (20)
Video tasks (2)
Full Attention
40.92
22.1
Chunk-window Attention
37.35
23.3
Ariadne Attention
40.40
24.3
Table 1: Corrected benchmark averages reported separately for image and video tasks at the 8k primary checkpoint. Ariadne is within 0.52 points of full attention on image tasks; the two video tasks are reported separately rather than folded into the headline claim.
Figure 9: ViT forward-pass time at 8962 (4,096 tokens). Solid bars: end-to-end block time; hatched bars: attention kernel only. In the updated scaling run, Ariadne is 106.8 ms end-to-end versus 123.5 ms for Full, and its attention kernel is 6.7 ms versus 24.6 ms.
Appendix figures & tables32 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Value
Layers
32
Full-attention layers
positions 7, 15, 23, 31
Local-attention layers
28
Hidden dimension
1,280
MLP dimension
3,456
Attention heads
16
Appendix
Table 2: ViT encoder hyperparameters, shared across all 9 configurations.
Short Name
Layout
Attention
Sink
Window Size
SHS-Index
Performance (20-image)
wa2d
2D
Chunk
No
64 tok
.577
37.35
wa2d_sink
2D
Chunk
Yes
64 tok
.579
37.94
swa2d
2D
SWA
No
128 tok
.588
38.09
swa2d_sink
2D
SWA
Yes
128 tok
.597
39.13
swa_row
1D row
SWA
No
128 tok
.600
38.80
swa_sink_row
1D row
SWA
Yes
128 tok
.598
40.14
Appendix
Table 3: Complete model configurations. All models share the same ViT architecture (32 layers, 16 heads, dh=80 ) and training setup (Table 8 ); only the local attention operator differs. Bench = macro-average over 20 image tasks.
Window
Context
SHS
20-image
22-task
w=32
64 tok
.597
38.11
36.95
w=64
128 tok
.602
40.40
38.93
w=128
256 tok
.595
38.65
37.27
Appendix
Table 4: Window size ablation (Ariadne, swa_sink_4r3c) at the primary checkpoint. w=64 is optimal under both 20-image and 22-task averages, matching the window size used by GPT-OSS ( OpenAI, 2025 ) and MiMo-V2-Flash ( Xiaomi LLM-Core Team, 2026 ) .
Figure 10: Benchmark trajectory across training for six key models. Architectural rankings are stable across late checkpoints, while SWA+Sink (2D) begins to overfit in the late stage.
Iter
full_s †
full
4r3c
sink_r
swa_r
s2d_s
swa2d
w_s
wa2d
2k
22.25
21.48
24.58
23.15
22.34
22.98
22.67
23.22
23.02
4k
34.44
37.15
36.24
35.77
34.80
35.67
33.30
35.48
34.62
6k
37.70
40.56
38.04
37.72
36.64
36.57
37.64
38.19
36.82
8k
39.95
40.92
40.40
40.14
38.80
39.13
38.09
37.94
37.35
10k
39.94
40.40
40.10
40.11
38.84
38.01
35.21
38.27
37.10
Appendix
Table 5: Benchmark (avg w/o video, 20 tasks) across training iterations. The 8k primary checkpoint uses corrected MMBench-EN scores; the 10k row retains the original evaluation because the re-evaluation was run at 8k only. † full_sink 2k–6k based on general tasks only (10 tasks).
Iter
full_s †
full
4r3c
sink_r
swa_r
s2d_s
swa2d
w_s
wa2d
2k
22.25
21.42
24.41
23.04
22.35
22.85
22.58
23.13
22.92
4k
33.25
35.77
35.16
34.67
33.73
34.67
32.41
34.49
33.61
6k
36.26
38.93
36.85
36.53
35.55
35.45
36.54
37.01
35.62
8k
38.18
39.21
38.93
38.66
37.51
37.76
36.91
36.70
36.07
10k
38.20
38.73
38.66
38.63
37.61
36.84
34.27
37.02
35.91
Appendix
Table 6: Benchmark (avg w/ video, 22 tasks) across training iterations. Includes Video-MME and Video-MMMU. The 8k primary checkpoint uses corrected MMBench-EN scores; the 10k row retains the original evaluation. † full_sink 2k–6k based on general tasks only (10 tasks).
Cat.
Task
Full
Chunk
Ariadne
Δ
General
AI2D
37.2
35.3
37.5
+2.3
BLINK
37.0
39.4
38.3
−1.1
CV-Bench
47.7
43.4
49.5
+6.1
MMMU
29.1
28.7
30.2
+1.5
MMBench-EN
36.34
36.94
38.57
+1.63
MMBench-CN
30.8
27.2
29.9
+2.7
Appendix
Table 7: Per-task benchmark results for the three key models at the 8k primary checkpoint. MMBench-EN was re-evaluated with corrected output parsing. Δ = Ariadne − Chunk. Bold = best between Chunk and Ariadne. Ariadne recovers most of the full-hybrid gap on vision-centric tasks (V* +11.0 , DocVQA +9.8 , OCRBench +8.9 ); grounding tasks, which rely on local spatial reasoning within the sliding window, show near-parity.
Parameter
Value
ViT encoder
Random-init, 32 layers
LLM backbone
Qwen2-0.5B ( Yang et al., 2024 )
Projector
Random-init
ViT / LLM lr
5×10−4 / 1×10−5
LR schedule
Constant w/ 1k warmup
Global batch size
2,048
Appendix
Table 8: Training configuration shared across all nine models.
Table 9: Benchmark suite: 20 image + 2 video tasks. Video tasks excluded from primary “Avg w/o video”; included in “Avg w/ video.” Citations: General ( Kembhavi et al., 2016 ; Fu et al., 2024 ; Tong et al., 2024 ; Yue et al., 2024 ; Liu et al., 2024a ; Jiang et al., 2024 ; Zhang et al., 2025 ; Wu and Xie, 2024 ; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024 ) ; OCR ( Wang et al., 2024 ; Mathew et al., 2021 ; Mathew et al., 2022 ; Masry et al., 2022 ; Liu et al., 2024c ) ; Grounding ( Yu et al., 2016 ) ; Count ( Deitke et al., 2024 ) ; Video ( Fu et al., 2025 ; Hu et al., 2025 ) .
Figure 11: Per-head received-attention box plots corresponding to Figure 2 . Each subplot shows the distribution for all 16 heads, split by foreground (blue) and background (green). Full Attention and Ariadne show clear obj/bg separation; Chunk Window distributions are uniform, indicating suppressed specialization.
Figure 12: Additional received-attention heatmaps across four images, laid out as Figure 2 . Each block: first column = input image (top) and foreground mask (bottom); columns 2–4 = representative head heatmaps at L11 and L17 (layer labels on the right). Full Attention and Ariadne consistently show clear object/background differentiation; Chunk Window shows suppressed specialization across all images.
#
Model
Family
Attention
ViT Spec
SHS-all
SHS-core
1
InternVL3.5-38B
InternVL
Full
6B (45L, 3200d, 25h)
.648
.627
2
InternVL3.5-8B
InternVL
Full
300M (24L, 1024d, 16h)
.641
.651
3
Qwen3-VL-32B
Qwen3-VL
Full
SigLIP2-SO-400M
.633
.644
4
InternVL3-8B
InternVL
Full
300M (24L, 1024d, 16h)
.630
.649
5
Qwen3-VL-8B
Qwen3-VL
Full
SigLIP2-SO-400M
.626
.639
6
Qwen3-VL-4B
Qwen3-VL
Full
SigLIP2-Large (300M)
.624
.639
Appendix
Table 10: SHS-Index on 16 open-source visual encoders and VLMs. The full-attention group (mean SHS ≈ 0.631) and chunk-window group (mean SHS = 0.585) show zero overlap: the lowest full-attention score is .610, above the highest chunk score .586. Qwen3-VL uses SigLIP2-SO-400M for its 8B/32B variants and SigLIP2-Large (300M) for its 2B/4B variants; Qwen2.5-VL uses an identical ViT across 3B–72B LLM sizes (SHS varies by <0.002 ). DINOv2 and DINOv3 were not trained with a language model, providing an additional check that the separation is not specific to VLM training.
Model
COCO
VOC
OpenImages
Chart
Full+Sink
.611
.615
.618
.634
Full
.606
.609
.614
.627
SWA+Sink (1D)
.598
.596
.608
.625
SWA+Sink (2D)
.597
.600
.598
.626
Chunk
.577
.583
.575
.613
Pearson r (vs. 22-task)
.87
.80
.88
.75
Appendix
Table 11: Cross-domain SHS-Index robustness. Correlations use all eight diagnostic configurations at 8k; the five model rows are representative. The model ranking remains highly stable across domains (cross-domain rank Spearman ρ=0.97 ).
Figure 13: SHS-Index across iterations. High/low separation stabilizes from 4k onward.
Figure 14: Obj-dominant heads across iterations. SWA-1D without sink has the lowest percentage, while full attention remains highest.
Iter
full_s
full
4r3c
sink_r
swa_r
s2d_s
swa2d
w_s
wa2d
2k
.632
.627
.612
.610
.601
.605
.602
.596
.589
4k
.616
.610
.603
.600
.591
.596
.590
.585
.579
6k
.614
.606
.601
.597
.586
.595
.590
.580
.578
8k
.611
.606
.602
.598
.600
.597
.588
.579
.577
10k
.610
.604
.600
.595
.601
.596
.587
.581
.576
Appendix
Table 12: SHS-Index (mean over all 32 layers) across training iterations for all 9 controlled architectures. This is the primary aggregation used throughout the paper (Table 16 , Pearson correlation in § 3 , and Figure 6 ). Column headers abbreviated: full_s = full_sink, sink_r = swa_sink_row, swa_r = swa_row, s2d_s = swa2d_sink, w_s = wa2d_sink.
Iter
full_s
full
4r3c
sink_r
swa_r
s2d_s
swa2d
w_s
wa2d
2k
.651
.644
.612
.615
.604
.605
.606
.597
.586
4k
.636
.629
.602
.603
.593
.598
.596
.583
.577
6k
.635
.624
.604
.600
.588
.597
.599
.578
.576
8k
.632
.623
.604
.599
.603
.601
.592
.580
.576
10k
.630
.622
.605
.594
.601
.598
.593
.580
.574
Appendix
Table 13: SHS-Index (core layers L9–21) across training iterations.
Iter
full_s
full
4r3c
sink_r
swa_r
s2d_s
swa2d
w_s
wa2d
2k
93.8
91.7
83.3
84.4
81.2
83.3
84.4
81.2
90.6
4k
82.3
79.2
69.8
74.0
68.8
74.0
75.0
78.1
75.0
6k
81.2
80.2
68.8
67.7
61.5
69.8
75.0
68.8
76.0
8k
82.3
78.1
71.9
67.7
59.4
69.8
71.9
66.7
72.9
10k
79.2
76.0
67.7
64.6
59.4
72.9
70.8
69.8
71.9
Appendix
Table 14: Percentage of obj-dominant heads (core L9–21, majority vote across analysis images).
Iter
full_s
full
4r3c
sink_r
swa_r
s2d_s
swa2d
w_s
wa2d
2k
.618
.608
.566
.576
.552
.567
.570
.566
.557
4k
.596
.584
.546
.554
.533
.547
.548
.545
.543
6k
.589
.574
.545
.540
.524
.539
.546
.529
.537
8k
.587
.574
.545
.543
.522
.540
.539
.531
.534
10k
.581
.566
.543
.532
.519
.537
.537
.530
.531
Appendix
Table 15: Mean rcv_auroc_obj (core L9–21) across training iterations.
Model
Layout
Attn
Sink
SHS
Entropy
Distance
Bench
full
N/A
Full
No
.606
4.584
14.922
40.92
full_sink
N/A
Full
Yes
.611
4.350
14.824
39.95
4r3c
1D rc
SWA
Yes
.602
2.768
13.950
40.40
swa_sink_row
1D r
SWA
Yes
.598
2.969
12.002
40.14
swa_row
1D r
SWA
No
.600
3.010
11.713
38.80
swa2d_sink
2D
SWA
Yes
.597
2.975
12.802
39.13
Appendix
Table 16: SHS, Entropy, and Distance for all 9 models at the primary checkpoint. SHS-Index is the all-32-layer mean (matching Table 12 ; same convention used for the Pearson correlation in § 3 ). Entropy and Distance are computed only over the 28 non-full-attn layers, since the 4 full-attn layers are identical across all 9 architectures and would dominate these distance/entropy averages.
Metric
ρ
p
SHS
+0.857
0.007
Distance
+0.833
0.010
Entropy
+0.524
0.183
Appendix
Table 17: Cross-model Spearman ρ vs. benchmark (N=8). SHS is the strongest correlate; Entropy is not significant.
Change
Δ SHS
Δ Ent.
Δ Dist.
Δ Bench
+Sink (Chunk 2D)
+.002
−0.05
+0.46
+0.59
+Sink (SWA 2D)
+.009
+0.06
+1.00
+1.04
+Sink (SWA 1D)
−.002
−0.04
+0.29
+1.34
+Sink (Full)
+.005
−0.23
−0.10
−0.97
Chunk → SWA (2D)
+.011
+0.44
+1.11
+0.74
Chunk → SWA (2D+s)
+.018
+0.55
+1.66
+1.78
Appendix
Table 18: Pairwise deltas for each architectural change at the corrected 8k checkpoint. The 2D → 1D transition improves the benchmark, but individual local changes do not always move SHS and benchmark in the same direction; the relationship is a global cross-architecture pattern rather than a monotonic rule for every intervention. ( Δ SHS uses all-32-layer mean as in Table 16 ; Δ Entropy/Distance use the non-full-attn layers.)
Model
bg stl.
obj stl.
Δ
bg > obj
full_sink
0.38%
0.23%
+0.14%
97.9%
swa_sink_row
4.61%
2.86%
+1.74%
96.9%
swa_sink_4r3c
3.79%
2.52%
+1.26%
93.8%
swa2d_sink
2.84%
1.68%
+1.16%
96.9%
wa2d_sink
4.32%
3.69%
+0.64%
78.1%
Appendix
Table 19: Sink steal analysis (all heads, core L9–21 at the primary checkpoint). bg/obj stl. = fraction of received attention redirected to sink. In SWA models, 94–97% of heads steal more from bg than obj, i.e., sink acts as a background suppressor . In wa2d_sink, directionality drops to 78%, explaining why chunk+sink fails.
Setting
High
Low
p (U)
d
8 diagnostic @8k
38.80–40.92
37.35–38.09
.018
3.65
9 all @8k
38.80–40.92
37.35–38.09
.012
3.91
9 all @10k
38.01–40.40
35.21–38.27
.024
2.37
Appendix
Table 20: Robustness check: K -means ( k=2 ) on SHS-Index partitions the controlled configurations into high-SHS and low-SHS groups (benchmark ranges shown). Mann-Whitney U test on the 20-image-task average confirms significant separation. Cohen’s d uses unweighted pooled SD. The 9-model grouping remains significant at 10k.
Panel A: High-8 vs. Low-8 (avg over 23 tasks)
Condition
Δ vs. base
Remove 8 hi-SHS
−1.25
Remove 8 lo-SHS
−1.07
hi − lo
−0.18
(14/23 tasks hi < lo)
Panel B: All 16 heads removed
Task
Base
Δ
Appendix
Table 21: Head elimination on the full model (core layers). Panel A : removing 8 high-SHS vs. 8 low-SHS heads yields negligible difference; individual heads are interchangeable. Panel B : removing all 16 heads collapses vision-dependent tasks; MMMU (reasoning-heavy) is unaffected. The collective specialization pattern is indispensable. The head-elimination suite (23 tasks) is a superset of the 22-task primary benchmark, with sub-scores (e.g., MME-cognition vs. MME-perception) reported separately for finer-grained per-task analysis.
Model
Tasks
avg (hi − lo)
full
23
−0.18
wa2d
23
+0.20
swa_sink_row
25
−0.27
Appendix
Table 22: High-low SHS head elimination across models. No model shows a significant difference. Task counts vary slightly (23–25) across models because evaluation suites differ in which sub-scores are reported separately at this checkpoint; the conclusion (no high/low gap) is robust to this choice.
Q
K
V
O
Q × K
full
+.09
+.11
−.06
+.05
+.10
4r3c
+.15
+.16
+.01
+.05
+.16
sink_row
+.00
+.02
−.03
+.13
+.01
swa_row
+.14
+.14
+.06
+.16
+.14
s2d_sink
+.33
+.32
+.05
+.19
+.33
swa2d
+.19
+.20
+.01
+.12
+.20
Appendix
Table 23: Spearman ρ between per-head weight Frobenius norms and SHS. Q/K show weak positive correlations (8/8 positive); V shows none (mean −.01 ).
Model
Base SHS
Eq. SHS
Δ
full
.6237
.6178
−0.0059
4r3c
.6044
.6001
−0.0044
swa_sink_row
.5993
.5958
−0.0035
swa_row
.6036
.5997
−0.0038
wa2d
.5763
.5751
−0.0013
Appendix
Table 24: QK equalization: SHS drops in all 5 models. The positive QK-SHS correlation is a consequence, not a cause, of head specialization.
Full
wa2d (Chunk)
SWA-row
SWA-sink-row
Res
Tok
FLOP
op
e2e
FLOP
op
e2e
FLOP
op
e2e
FLOP
op
e2e
2242
256
0.04
1.2
22.1
0.01
2.8
24.4
0.02
1.2
22.1
0.02
1.2
22.3
4482
1024
0.69
2.2
32.1
0.12
4.5
32.9
0.16
1.4
31.4
0.16
1.4
31.3
6722
2304
3.48
7.6
68.7
0.52
9.7
68.4
0.60
2.9
64.6
0.60
2.9
64.6
8962
4096
11.0
23.9
124.4
1.52
17.5
115.3
1.68
6.2
109.0
1.68
6.3
109.0
11202
6400
26.8
55.2
211.2
3.59
28.8
178.1
3.83
12.1
168.5
3.83
12.0
168.6
Appendix
Table 25: Four-operator ViT profiling at representative resolutions. FLOP = attention TFLOP; op = FlashAttention kernel time (ms); e2e = full block time (ms). SWA-sink-row ≡ SWA-row: sink adds zero overhead in this run (FA3 native s_aux support). The updated Full–Ariadne scaling sweep is reported in Table 26 .
Resolution
Tokens
Full attn.
Ariadne attn.
Full e2e
Ariadne e2e
e2e saving
4482
1,024
0.69T
0.16T
31.3
30.6
−2.2%
6722
2,304
3.48T
0.60T
66.9
62.8
−6.1%
8962
4,096
11.0T
1.68T
123.5
106.8
−13.5%
11202
6,400
26.8T
3.83T
210.1
166.1
−20.9%
13442
9,216
55.7T
7.64T
327.5
240.0
−26.7%
15682
12,544
103.1T
13.8T
500.2
331.0
−33.8%
Appendix
Table 26: Updated Full–Ariadne efficiency sweep on NVIDIA Hopper with FlashAttention-3. Attention columns report theoretical attention FLOPs; e2e columns report complete ViT block time in milliseconds. The end-to-end saving grows with resolution, which is the regime targeted by hybrid attention.
Step
Setting
22-task
20 image-task
r
p
r
p
8k
N=8 (diagnostic)
.858
.006
.877
.004
8k
N=9 (incl. Ariadne)
.853
.003
.875
.002
10k
N=8
.66
.077
.67
.067
10k
N=9
.67
.048
.69
.041
Appendix
Table 27: Pearson correlation between SHS-Index and benchmark across controlled architectures. The 8k rows use corrected MMBench-EN scores; bootstrap 95% CI for the primary 22-task setting is [0.51,0.98] , and an exact two-sided permutation test gives p=0.008 . The 10k rows retain the original evaluation and are included as a sensitivity analysis.
Setting
r
Bootstrap 95% CI
Exact p
N=8 , 22-task
.858
[.51, .98]
.008
N=8 , 20-image
.877
[.63, .98]
.006
N=9 , 22-task
.853
[.50, .98]
.004
N=9 , 20-image
.875
[.63, .98]
.002
Appendix
Table 28: Bootstrap intervals (10k resamples) and exact two-sided permutation p -values computed from the corrected 8k benchmark scores. The N=8 permutation enumerates all 40,320 assignments.
The quadratic complexity of attention poses a critical bottleneck for long-context processing, spurring interest in hybrid attention designs. Most open-source hybrid models adopt a layer-wise strategy. Yet, prior work has noted the inherent difficulty of integrating Linear Attention (LA) with Full Attention (FA), suggesting that the design space of attention hybridization remains underexplored. To probe this space, we conduct interpretability analysis and observe that layers exhibit block-wise functional similarity, while individual heads within the same layer display distinct functional specialization despite sharing input features. This head-level heterogeneity suggests that the head dimension provides a natural and principled granularity for fusing heterogeneous attention signals. Building on this insight, we introduce HydraHead, a novel architecture that hybridizes FA and LA along the head axis. HydraHead features two key innovations: (1) an interpretability-driven selection strategy that identifies retrieval-critical heads and preserves FA only for them, and (2) a scale-normalized fusion module that reconciles the distributional gap between FA and LA head outputs. By leveraging a three-stage transfer pipeline with parameter reuse and distillation, we achieve high-performance hybrid models with minimal training overhead. Under a unified training setup, HydraHead outperforms other hybrid designs in long-context tasks while maintaining strong general reasoning. With interpretability-driven head selection, it matches a 3:1 layer-wise hybrid's long-context performance at a 7:1 LA-to-FA ratio. Crucially, trained on only 15B tokens, HydraHead achieves over 69% improvement over the baseline at 512K context length, approaching Qwen3.5, a leading model of comparable size with a native context length of 256K. This highlights the significant scaling potential of head-level hybridization.
Representation alignment has emerged as an effective approach to improve Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) by regularizing their internal representations toward those of an external vision encoder. However, existing methods typically align a fixed layer of the language backbone, overlooking the fine-grained structure of Transformer models. In this work, we propose Head-Wise Representation Alignment (HeRA), a method that enforces cross-modal alignment at the level of individual attention heads. Our approach is grounded in the Platonic Representation Hypothesis, focusing on preserving the topological structure of representations (i.e., their local neighborhood relationships) across modalities. Following the Mutual K-Nearest Neighbor (MKNN) alignment metric, we introduce a contrastive objective that acts as a differentiable proxy for matching local structures. HeRA applies this objective during multimodal training to specific attention heads in the LLM, selected by their alignment score according to the MKNN metric. Counterintuitively, we find that aligning the least aligned heads yields the largest gains. Extensive evaluations across multiple MLLMs and 18 benchmarks demonstrate that HeRA consistently improves performance on challenging vision-centric tasks and serves as an effective regularizer against visual hallucinations by naturally curbing the over-reliance on linguistic priors. Our code is publicly released.
Davide Caffagni, Alberto Compagnoni, Federico Melis +5
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia · University of Pisa · AMD Silo AI
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) achieve strong performance on visual reasoning tasks, yet remain prone to hallucinations and over-reliance on language priors, often generating answers without adequately using task-relevant visual evidence. Existing approaches primarily improve reasoning through reasoning-oriented supervision or inference-time strategies. In this work, we study a complementary question: can multimodal reasoning be improved by strengthening implicit visual grounding without directly supervising the reasoning process? Motivated by the functional specialization of attention heads, we investigate whether reasoning can be improved by guiding only the heads most responsive to visual evidence grounding. We propose Selective Probability Mass Concentration (sPMC), a training framework that identifies grounding-responsive heads and selectively regularizes their text-to-image attention. sPMC treats normalized attention over visual tokens as a spatial probability distribution and encourages the probability mass to be assigned to semantically relevant regions using segmentation-derived spatial priors. Adaptive Head Selection restricts this guidance to visually responsive heads while leaving the remaining heads unconstrained to preserve their complementary functions. Across 6 multimodal benchmark suites, sPMC achieves an average zero-shot improvement of 3% and gains of up to 11.3% across multiple MLLMs while regularizing only 3%-15% of their attention heads. These results demonstrate that targeted guidance of sparse and implicit visual evidence pathways can directly improve multimodal reasoning.
Jiaqi Deng, Zonghan Wu, Zhan Heng +3
University of Technology Sydney · East China Normal University · The University of New South Wales +2