Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Interpreting the linear structure of vision-language model embedding spaces

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

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

classification cs.CVcs.CLcs.MM
keywords modalitysaesconceptslinearmodelsspacesconceptembedding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Bridging Compute- and Data-Optimal Pretraining

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Pretraining loss obeys a single law in which repeated or paraphrased tokens count as η(N, data-per-parameter, expansion-ratio) fresh tokens, with total effective data saturating as derived tokens grow.

  2. How Do Vision-Language Models Process Conflicting Information Across Modalities?

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Vision-language models answer from whichever modality is encoded more saliently in their final-layer representations, and specific attention heads can be manipulated to shift that preference.

Pith tools