Pith

open record

sign in
Browse

arxiv: 2504.11695 · v4 · pith:NZJQEFHL · submitted 2025-04-16 · cs.CV · cs.CL· cs.MM

Interpreting the linear structure of vision-language model embedding spaces

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved pith:NZJQEFHLrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.CV cs.CLcs.MM
keywords modalitysaesconceptslinearmodelsspacesconceptembedding
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Vision-language models encode images and text in a joint space, minimizing the distance between corresponding image and text pairs. How are language and images organized in this joint space, and how do the models encode meaning and modality? To investigate this, we train and release sparse autoencoders (SAEs) on the embedding spaces of four vision-language models (CLIP, SigLIP, SigLIP2, and AIMv2). SAEs approximate model embeddings as sparse linear combinations of learned directions, or "concepts". We find that, compared to other methods of linear feature learning, SAEs are better at reconstructing the real embeddings, while also able to retain the most sparsity. Retraining SAEs with different seeds or different data diet leads to two findings: the rare, specific concepts captured by the SAEs are liable to change drastically, but we also show that commonly-activating concepts are remarkably stable across runs. Interestingly, while most concepts activate primarily for one modality, we find they are not merely encoding modality per se. Many are almost orthogonal to the subspace that defines modality, and the concept directions do not function as good modality classifiers, suggesting that they encode cross-modal semantics. To quantify this bridging behavior, we introduce the Bridge Score, a metric that identifies concept pairs which are both co-activated across aligned image-text inputs and geometrically aligned in the shared space. This reveals that even single-modality concepts can collaborate to support cross-modal integration. We release interactive demos of the SAEs for all models, allowing researchers to explore the organization of the concept spaces. Overall, our findings uncover a sparse linear structure within VLM embedding spaces that is shaped by modality, yet stitched together through latent bridges, offering new insight into how multimodal meaning is constructed.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Concept-Based Abductive and Contrastive Explanations for Behaviors of Vision Models

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Concept-based abductive and contrastive explanations find minimal high-level concepts that causally determine vision model outcomes on individual images or groups sharing a specified behavior.

  2. When transformers learn "impossible" languages, what do they learn?

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Transformers on impossible-language variants show gradual grammatical sensitivity loss but sharp long-sentence generation failures, supporting generative deficiency as a link to non-attestation.

  3. Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Background-Invariant Representations via Linear Structure in VLMs

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Exploiting linear structure in VLM embeddings, a synthetic-data pre-training method yields background-invariant representations that exceed 90% worst-group accuracy on Waterbirds even under 100% spurious correlation w...

  4. The Cost of Language: Centroid Erasure Exposes and Exploits Modal Competition in Multimodal Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Centroid erasure shows language representations overshadow vision in multimodal models, and text-centroid contrastive decoding recovers substantial accuracy on visual reasoning tasks.