DEX-AR: A Dynamic Explainability Method for Autoregressive Vision-Language Models
Organizations: Tuebingen AI Center · University of Tuebingen · MIT CSAIL · MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab ·
Abstract
As Vision-Language Models (VLMs) become increasingly sophisticated and widely used, it becomes more and more crucial to understand their decision-making process. Traditional explainability methods, designed for classification tasks, struggle with modern autoregressive VLMs due to their complex token-by-token generation process and intricate interactions between visual and textual modalities. We present DEX-AR (Dynamic Explainability for AutoRegressive models), a novel explainability method designed to address these challenges by generating both per-token and sequence-level 2D heatmaps highlighting image regions crucial for the model's textual responses. The proposed method offers to interpret autoregressive VLMs-including varying importance of layers and generated tokens-by computing layer-wise gradients with respect to attention maps during the token-by-token generation process. DEX-AR introduces two key innovations: a dynamic head filtering mechanism that identifies attention heads focused on visual information, and a sequence-level filtering approach that aggregates per-token explanations while distinguishing between visually-grounded and purely linguistic tokens. Our evaluation on ImageNet, VQAv2, and PascalVOC, shows a consistent improvement in both perturbation-based metrics, using a novel normalized perplexity measure, as well as segmentation-based metrics.
Figures & tables
| Model | Method | ImageNet | VQAv2 | ( sec. | ||
| Pos( ) | Neg.( ) | Pos( ) | Neg.( ) | /img. | ||
| LlaVA-1.5 | Attention | 2.17 | 1.01 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.45 |
| GradCAM | 1.43 | 1.1 | 0.91 | 0.77 | 0.66 | |
| CheferCAM | 2.06 | 1.03 | 0.93 | 0.78 | 6.20 | |
| Attn Grad | 1.94 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.80 | 0.65 | |
| Int.Grad | 1.63 | 1.52 | 0.91 | 0.80 | 8.20 | |
| Model | Method | soft-IoU( ) | IoU( ) | EPG( ) |
| LlaVA-1.5 | Attention | 2.00 | 19.10 | 16.00 |
| Rollout | 2.54 | 19.59 | 11.41 | |
| GradCAM | 10.20 | 28.90 | 19.30 | |
| CheferCAM | 1.60 | 21.01 | 17.10 | |
| Attn Grad | 5.10 | 24.20 | 26.60 | |
| DEX-AR | 17.70 | 36.34 | 27.75 |
| LlaVA | BakLlaVA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNR | MSE | SNR | MSE | |
| - | 1.64 | 0.33 | 5.27 | 0.15 |
| max | 3.64 | 0.22 | 6.02 | 0.14 |
| 0.05 | 3.35 | 0.24 | 4.13 | 0.17 |
| 0.1 | 3.09 | 0.25 | 4.13 | 0.19 |
| 0.2 | 2.45 | 0.28 | 3.18 | 0.22 |
| Filtering | SNR | MSE | EPG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Head | Filler | |||
| ✗ | ✗ | 9.16 | 0.13 | 44.96 |
| ✓ | ✗ | 16.84 | 0.10 | 63.38 |
| ✗ | ✓ | 89.29 | 0.11 | 92.50 |
| ✓ | ✓ | 96.12 | 0.12 | 95.04 |
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| ReLU | Interm. feat. | LLaVA | BakLLaVA | PaliGemma | Florence-2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✗ | ✓ | 31.56 | 35.09 | 22.90 | 30.44 |
| ✓ | ✗ | 33.05 | 32.87 | 22.85 | 26.91 |
| ✗ | ✗ | 24.54 | 27.80 | 22.83 | 27.01 |
| ✓ | ✓ | 36.34 | 35.85 | 23.55 | 32.48 |
| Method | POS | NEG | IC | Insert. | Del. | sec./img. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rollout | 6.13 | 3.12 | 0.69 | 0.14 | 0.21 | 0.51 |
| GradCAM | 7.49 | 4.39 | 0.64 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.66 |
| CheferCAM | 11.15 | 4.07 | 0.64 | 0.19 | 0.36 | 6.20 |
| Attn x CAM | 12.60 | 3.74 | 0.65 | 0.18 | 0.42 | 0.65 |
| Integrated Grad. | 13.50 | 12.77 | 0.44 | 0.32 | 0.33 | 3.25 |
| RISE | 6.39 | 3.87 | 0.65 | 0.21 | 0.28 | 11.80 |
| Model | Method | Positive (AUC) | Negative (AUC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| LLaVA-1.5 | TAM | 1.82 | 1.03 |
| DEX-AR (Ours) | 2.31 | 0.96 |
| Filter Setting | Pixelate | Fog | Brightness | Zoom Blur | Gauss. Noise | Motion Blur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| max (Ours) | 125.90 | 153.53 | 132.02 | 108.97 | 62.72 | 97.72 |
| avg | 7.89 | 9.43 | 9.44 | 5.43 | 1.48 | 6.17 |
| top- | 118.83 | 140.65 | 135.01 | 103.62 | 47.79 | 97.54 |
| top- | 103.09 | 128.20 | 122.95 | 90.05 | 30.46 | 76.43 |
| top- | 96.10 | 149.53 | 137.96 | 62.25 | -15.02 | 48.10 |
| top- | -1.50 | 7.47 | 10.07 | -10.22 | -16.82 | -9.03 |
VLM Interpretability
Vision-language model interpretability explains how image and language representations shape predictions, evidence use, and multimodal reasoning.
See all 268 papers