Sparse Autoencoders uncover thousands of features in vision models, yet explaining these features without requiring human intervention remains an open challenge. While previous work has proposed generating correlation-based explanations based on top activating input examples, we present a fundamentally different alternative based on causal interventions. We leverage the structure of Vision-Language Models and steer individual SAE features in the vision encoder after providing an empty image. Then, we prompt the language model to explain what it ``sees'', effectively eliciting the visual concept represented by each feature. Results show that Steering offers an scalable alternative that complements traditional approaches based on input examples, serving as a new axis for automated interpretability in vision models. Moreover, the quality of explanations improves consistently with the scale of the language model, highlighting our method as a promising direction for future research. Finally, we propose Steering-informed Top-k, a hybrid approach that combines the strengths of causal interventions and input-based approaches to achieve state-of-the-art explanation quality without additional computational cost.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Top : A vision feature extracted with an SAE is explained based on top-activating images, which are passed to the VLM to generate an explanation based on correlated visual evidence. Bottom : We propose to automatically obtain explanations of SAE features by causally intervening ( steering ) a vision encoder. The intervention is done after feeding it an information-devoid white image, effectively making the language model articulate what visual concept that feature represents.
Model
Explanation Method
IoU Score
AUROC
Synth. Act. Score
CLIP Score
Masks
Heatmaps
Masks
Heatmaps
Masks
Heatmaps
Masks
Heatmaps
Gemma 3
Steering
0.211
0.675
0.324
0.186
Top-k
0.211
0.198
0.723
0.791
0.330
0.364
0.190
0.187
Steering-informed Top-k
0.216
0.203
0.788
0.838
0.461
0.505
0.193
0.189
InternVL3
Steering
0.220
0.655
0.141
0.191
Top-k
0.224
0.201
0.768
0.775
0.187
0.183
0.199
0.187
Table 1: Explanation evaluation metrics for the middle layer SAE of Gemma 3 and InternVL3-14B vision encoders. Except for AUROC, mean scores are reported, and statistical significance is assessed pairwise between methods. A value is underlined if it is significantly higher (with p<0.05 ) than both other methods in the same column.
Figure 3Figure 4
Figure 5: Explanation evaluation scores–synthetic-image-based scores on the left, and IoU and CLIP scores on the right of Top-k method as a function of the evaluation set size. Steering-informed Top-k results on the rightmost bar.
Table 3: Explanation evaluation metrics for the later layer SAE of Gemma 3 vision encoder. Except for AUROC, mean scores are reported, and statistical significance is assessed pairwise between methods. A value is underlined if it is significantly higher (with p<0.05 ) than both other methods in the same column.
Figure 9: IoU Score and CLIP score values for Top-k method as a function of the similarity with Steering explanations.
Figure 10: IoU Score and CLIP score values as a function of dataset size, for Masks Top-k method.
Figure 11: Prompt used for obtaining explanations for the Steering method. Gemma 3 outputs when given this prompt and a blank image (without steering) are reported in Section G.2 .
Figure 12: Prompt used for obtaining explanations for the Top-k and Steering-informed Top-k method with Masks.
Figure 13: Prompt used for obtaining explanations for the Top-k and Steering-informed Top-k method with Heatmaps.
Model
Link
License
Gemma 3 [ 48 ]
Hugging Face (Google)
Gemma Terms of Use 9 9 9 https://ai.google.dev/gemma/terms
InternVL3-14B [ 56 ]
Hugging Face (OpenGVLab)
Apache 2.0
CLIP [ 38 ]
Hugging Face (OpenAI)
MIT License
SAM2 [ 41 ]
Hugging Face (Meta)
Apache 2.0
Stable Diffusion [ 12 ]
Hugging Face (Stability AI)
CreativeML OpenRAIL M license
all-mpnet-base-v2 [ 43 ]
HuggingFace
Apache 2.0
Appendix
Table 4: The list of models used in this work.
Dataset
Link
License
ImageNet [ 10 ]
Official Website
Custom (Non-commercial)
Appendix
Table 5: The list of datasets used in this work.
Model
Explanation Method
IoU Score
AUROC
Synth. Act. Score
CLIP Score
Gemma 3
Steering
0.204
0.691
0.353
0.186
Top-k
0.206
0.740
0.365
0.190
Steering-informed Top-k
0.209
0.806
0.518
0.193
Random-vector Steering
0.149
0.439
0.008
0.179
Random-perm Steering
0.138
0.448
0.008
0.161
Appendix
Table 6: Faithfulness controls for steering-based explanations on 1,000 SAE features (Gemma 3 vision encoder middle-layer). We compare true feature steering against random norm-matched directions and permuted feature directions. Mean scores shown. For Top-k-based explanations we used Masks.
Recent advances in language model interpretability using sparse autoencoders (SAEs) have yet to effectively translate to the visual domain, mainly due to the difficulty and ambiguity of labeling visual concepts. In this paper, we introduce Visual Interpretability via SAE Transfer Alignment (VISTA), a framework that transfers interpretability from language to vision in a LLaVA-style vision-language model by constraining a visual projector to map visual tokens into an LLM's pre-existing, labeled textual SAE space. This approach enables visual interpretability without training dedicated vision SAEs. By regularizing the projector using the LLM's SAE reconstruction loss, VISTA achieves a threefold increase in the matching rate, which measures how accurately the most activating textual concepts in the SAE space correspond to semantic elements in the image. Using this framework, we further analyze spatial localization properties of different vision encoders and show that DINOv2 features have stronger localization abilities than other encoders. Leveraging this precision, we validate VISTA's cross-modal alignment through fine-grained, localized concept interventions, where specific objects are removed or replaced in the model's perception while preserving the surrounding scene. This results in improvements of 35% in object removal and 47% in object replacement tasks over vision-only baselines, providing causal evidence that visual tokens inhabit the text SAE manifold. These contributions are validated across multiple LLM architectures.
Alexey Kravets, Da Li, Chuan Li +2
University of Bath, UK · Samsung AI Centre Cam- bridge · Lambda, Inc..
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) improve interpretability in multimodal models, but it remains unclear whether SAE features form modular, composable units for reasoning-an assumption underlying many intervention-based steering methods. We test this modularity hypothesis and find it often fails: intervening on a task-selective feature set can modestly improve reasoning accuracy, while intervening on the union of two such sets reliably induces output drift (large unintended changes in predictions) and degrades accuracy, even under norm-matched perturbations. This non modular circuit interference is consistent with shared internal pathways where feature unions amplify activation shifts. We develop a reproducible causal pipeline to localize and test these sparse visual thought circuits in Qwen3-VL-8B. On a controlled synthetic benchmark with seven task types and three difficulty levels, linear probes identify a mid decoder locus for task type information. We train SAEs at this layer, construct task-selective sets via an explicit rule, and perform inference time scaling and ablation while quantifying accuracy and drift. Our findings-validated with bootstrapped subsamples and permutation controls, and replicated across multiple VLM families and five diverse datasets clarify the boundaries of SAE feature composability and provide a rigorous diagnostic framework for more reliable VLM control.
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are proposed to extract numerous features from large language model (LLM) representations, yet explaining these features still relies primarily on external observation. This reliance leads to superficial explanations inferred from observed model behavior and computational inefficiency from collecting such behavioral evidence at scale. We introduce SAEVerbalizer, a framework that injects SAE decoder directions into an LLM's representations and fine-tunes the LLM's downstream layers to generate natural-language explanations of the injected features. Once trained, the resulting verbalizer explains SAE features directly from decoder directions, addressing both limitations. Our experiments show that the learned verbalization capability generalizes to unseen features, transfers across separately trained SAE dictionaries, and, with a lightweight adapter, extends to SAE features from different LLMs. Intervention experiments show that injecting multiple directions yields an explanation combining their meanings, while reversing individual directions produces corresponding meaning shifts.
Weihan Meng, Hongzhu Guo, Yi Jing +5
Tsinghua University · Peking University · Fudan University