Virtual Encoders in Multimodal Transformers

Recent advances in omni-modal large language models have enabled remarkable progress in joint vision-audio understanding. However, prevailing architectures rely on modality-specific encoders with a \emph{video-coarse, audio-dense} design -- sampling visual frames at 1--2 fps while processing audio waveforms at 25 fps -- resulting in systems that perceive video \emph{frame by frame, modality by modality} rather than holistically as humans do. Such a discrepancy leaves models with impoverished cross-modal interaction during encoding and an inability to capture fine-grained visual motion. To bridge this gap, we present \textbf{Omni-Encoder, a unified Transformer backbone designed to co-embed visual and audio signals at a symmetrical 25 fps} within a shared latent space. This architecture leverages three core innovations -- the Omni-Encoder Token Template, Omni-RoPE, and Temporal Window Shifting -- to effectively reconcile the dual challenges of modality disentanglement and computational efficiency. Experiments demonstrate that, compared to the modality-specific baseline Qwen2.5-Omni under the same input token budget to the LLM decoder, Omni-Encoder delivers substantial gains on visual continuous understanding tasks -- such as sign language recognition and fine-grained sports action analysis -- while maintaining competitive performance on established audio-visual benchmarks such as AVQA and Speaker Identification and Localization. These results suggest that unified omnivorous encoding offers a promising direction for building omni-modal models that more closely reflect the integrated nature of human perception.

Most modern multimodal large language models (MLLMs) build on a pretrained visual encoder that provides a strong visual prior. Encoder-free MLLMs instead learn visual representations directly from raw pixels, offering a simple and unified architecture, but their scaling behavior has not been systematically characterized. To fill this gap, we compare scaling laws for encoder-free and encoder-based MLLMs and report three main findings: (1) Removing the visual encoder shifts the compute-optimal allocation for the multimodal objective toward larger models, while leaving that for text nearly unchanged. (2) The two architectures exhibit nearly overlapping loss--compute frontiers on the text objective, but diverge on the multimodal objective: encoder-free models underperform at small scales yet are predicted to catch up at around $10^{22}$ FLOPs, well within practical pretraining budgets. (3) Without a visual encoder, the language model learns to take over its role via vision-specific adaptation: bidirectional interactions among visual tokens become increasingly beneficial as training compute grows, visual processing shifts toward earlier layers, and expert routing for visual tokens becomes more concentrated. Overall, our results indicate that the advantage of the visual prior provided by a pretrained encoder diminishes with scale, positioning encoder-free architectures as a promising direction for multimodal pretraining.

As foundation models scale toward fusing more heterogeneous visual streams, understanding how diverse encoders interact under joint training becomes a prerequisite for principled design. Yet large vision-language models (LVLMs) currently lack the tools to do so, and parameter-efficient encoder configurations remain hard to identify before training. To re-examine encoder roles under joint training, on the 16-benchmark Cambrian-1 suite we retrain and evaluate all 31 non-empty subsets of five common vision encoders under a unified pipeline (~20k GPU-hours total), and report three findings. First, retraining each subset from scratch reveals encoder rankings that differ from those obtained by masking encoders on a fixed checkpoint, including which encoder ranks first overall. Second, we decompose each encoder's contribution into two axes, Capacity, the score an encoder reaches on its own, and Necessity, the drop when it is removed from the full pool. The two axes are not interchangeable. Pairing the two highest-Capacity encoders is suboptimal, while pairing a high-Capacity anchor with an adaptive complement matches the full five-encoder model. Adding further encoders beyond this pair yields only marginal gains. Third, at fixed parameter count, per-encoder pre-projector effective rank explains the residual score variation. The strongest pairs combine an anchor whose rank survives joint training with a complement whose rank expands under it, suggesting that higher-rank, less-collapsed projector inputs correspond to a more favorable optimization regime at the encoder-projector interface. Together, the Capacity-Necessity decomposition and the pre-projector rank analysis, along with comprehensive evaluation through retraining, expose a methodological gap in multi-encoder LVLM design, and offer concrete primitives for closing it.