An omni-modal language model can answer a question about a multimodal document, a recording, or a video, but it cannot show which part of the input the answer came from. Asking the model to cite its evidence yields what it says it used; measuring what it used has so far required rerunning it many times with parts of the input removed, a cost that grows with every second of audio and video. We show that the generation pass already holds most of this information. OmniTrace attributes each generated sentence to source units (text chunks, images, and seconds of audio or video) by reading late-layer attention as mass over units with no extra forward pass and no per-modality tuning; head weights can be trained where ablation data are available. With fixed causal test setting, the units OmniTrace selects are causally important for responses and for individual sentences in video, audio, and image-text question answering on Qwen3-Omni-30B, MiniCPM-o 4.5 and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B. With one generation pass, OmniTrace recovers 77-96% of the effect of leave-one-out attribution, which needs up to 41 extra passes. OmniTrace also agrees best with human-marked evidence: its response-level rankings reach an AUROC of 0.83 on documents and 0.64 on video, against 0.76 and 0.60 for the strongest baseline.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: OmniTrace reads what a model used from the pass that generates the answer. Left: video, audio, and documents enter one input sequence as source units (seconds, passages, images). While the decoder writes a sentence, OmniTrace sums the attention mass on each unit (bars) and labels the units that stand out within their modality (orange). Top right: every sentence comes with its sources, as time intervals or source ids; here most labelled seconds fall inside the span that annotators marked, although no annotation was used. Bottom right: tested by hiding units and replaying the response, OmniTrace reaches 77–96% of the effect of leave-one-out with no extra forward pass, where perturbation needs 16 to 41 per question (Qwen2.5-Omni-7B).
No
No extra
Audio,
Method
training
pass
Image
video
Self-citation (prompted)
✓
–
✓
✓
ContextCite [ 8 ]
✓
–
–
–
MIRAGE [ 11 ]
✓
–
–
–
AT2 [ 9 ]
–
✓
–
–
MultAttnAttrib [ 12 ]
✓
✓
✓
–
Table 1: Attribution methods for generated text. Image and audio, video: source types the method is defined and evaluated on beyond text.
Video
Audio
Image–text
Dataset
NExT-GQA
MMAU
MMDocRAG
Task
multiple choice
multiple choice
long answer
Questions
300
249
400
Source unit
1 s of frames
1 s of audio
passage / image
Units per question
46
22
15
Input length
10–90 s
1.5–35 s
15 quotes
Table 2: Data. ∗ Open-ended answers graded as fully correct by an LLM judge Opus 5 [ 28 ] against the reference answer ( Appendix E ).
Video
Audio
Image–text
Method
Fwd
Lift
S-lift
S-spec
Fwd
Lift
S-lift
S-spec
Fwd
Lift
S-lift
S-spec
Embedding similarity
0
0.008
0.009
0.005
0
0.034
0.031
0.005
0
0.216
0.216
0.156
Self-citation
1
0.013
0.012
0.009
1
0.040
0.036
0.024
1
0.184
0.349
0.317
Leave-one-out ∗
41
0.016
0.024
0.022
17
0.100
0.133
0.105
16
0.368
0.404
0.286
ContextCite ∗
33
0.016
0.027
0.023
28
0.099
0.139
0.119
33
0.389
0.397
0.285
OmniTrace on Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
Table 3: Causal faithfulness and cost. Fwd: extra forward passes per question. Lift: extra drop in the response’s log-probability when a method’s top units are hidden, over hiding the same number of random units; S-lift and S-spec: sentence lift and specificity. Bold / underline : largest / second largest value of a column. ∗ Defined for text in the original work; run on audio, video, and images with OmniTrace’s units and placeholders. ¶ Head weights fitted on ablation data; no pass added at test time.
Figure 2: Hiding what OmniTrace selects hurts the response more than hiding random units of the same count , in every modality, at every budget, and on every model. Each line is the drop in the log-probability of a model’s own response when a share of its input is hidden: orange when the hidden units are the ones OmniTrace ranks highest for that model, blue when they are drawn at random. Solid lines are Qwen2.5-Omni-7B, dashed lines MiniCPM-o 4.5, and dotted lines Qwen3-Omni-30B, each explaining its own responses with the same OmniTrace setting. Bands are 95% bootstrap intervals.
Figure 3: Faithfulness against cost . Lift of each method as a share of leave-one-out’s lift, against the extra forward passes it needs per question. Both OmniTrace variants sit in the shaded column: they read their scores from the generation pass. OmniTrace-trained needs ablation data from the same model beforehand.
Figure 4: The model’s own citations . Left: share of responses that cite at least one valid source when asked to; OmniTrace attributes every response. Right: lift of the cited units and of OmniTrace’s units of the same count on the same responses.
Figure 5: A response and its attribution . Rows are generated sentences and cells are seconds of the video; darker cells hold more attention mass (scaled per row), and orange boxes are the labelled units. The bar on top is the human-marked evidence: 18 of the 21 labelled cells fall inside it, although no annotation was used.
Video
Image–text
Ranking
AUROC
Hit@1
AUROC
Hit@1
Random
0.500
0.215
0.500
0.194
Embedding similarity
0.604
0.288
0.763
0.527
Leave-one-out
0.549
0.309
0.721
0.657
ContextCite
0.566
0.342
0.743
0.642
OmniTrace
0.637
0.230
0.829
0.698
Table 4: Agreement of response-level rankings with human-marked evidence. AUROC: probability that an evidence unit is ranked above another unit. Hit@1: the top unit is evidence.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Modality ( n )
Budget
Lift, empty
Lift, mean
Mean − empty (paired)
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
Video (246)
10%
0.007
0.007
0.000 [ − 0.002, 0.003]
20%
0.016
0.014
− 0.002 [ − 0.004, 0.000]
30%
0.017
0.017
0.000 [ − 0.001, 0.001]
50%
0.027
0.025
− 0.002 [ − 0.008, 0.003]
Audio (196)
10%
0.056
0.062
0.006 [ − 0.002, 0.013]
20%
0.069
0.078
0.009 [0.000, 0.018]
Appendix
Table 5: Lift of OmniTrace under two ways of hiding a unit, on the same questions: a content-free placeholder at the input ( empty , used throughout the paper) and replacing the unit’s embeddings by their mean ( mean ).
Video ( n = 246)
Audio ( n = 196)
Image–text ( n = 400)
Method
Fwd
Lift
S-lift
S-spec
Fwd
Lift
S-lift
S-spec
Fwd
Lift
S-lift
S-spec
Baselines on MiniCPM-o 4.5
Embedding similarity
0
0.030
0.032
0.013
0
0.067 ↓
0.055 ↓
0.015 ↓
0
0.248 ↑
0.365 ↑
0.282 ↑
Self-citation †
1 ‡
0.026 ↑
0.037 ↑
0.034 ↑
1 ‡
0.064 ↓
0.093 ↓
0.114 ↓
1 ‡
0.267 ↑
0.907 ↑
0.903 ↑
Leave-one-out ∗
41
0.037 ↑
0.039 ↑
0.027 ↑
17
0.189 ↑
0.152 ↑
0.086 ↑
16
0.451 ↑
0.736 ↑
0.545 ↑
ContextCite ∗
33
0.050 ↑
0.058 ↑
0.032 ↑
28
0.193 ↑
0.157 ↑
0.101 ↑
33
0.453 ↑
0.722 ↑
0.542 ↑
Appendix
Table 6: The comparison of Table 3 repeated on MiniCPM-o 4.5: every baseline and both OmniTrace variants are run on this model. Columns as in Table 3 . ↓ / ↑ : reliably lower / higher than OmniTrace on this model on the same questions (paired 95% bootstrap interval). † Self-citation is a separate generation ( ‡ one extra pass), scored on the 210, 92, and 227 responses that cite; the document citation run covers 252 of the 400 questions.
Model
Modality ( n )
Budget
Drop, top
Drop, random
Lift
Lift >0
Keep gain
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
Video (246)
10%
0.009
0.002
0.007 [0.005, 0.009]
70%
0.022 [0.006, 0.048]
20%
0.020
0.004
0.016 [0.011, 0.021]
73%
0.010 [ − 0.002, 0.021]
30%
0.025
0.009
0.017 [0.013, 0.021]
77%
0.006 [ − 0.004, 0.013]
50%
0.043
0.016
0.027 [0.021, 0.034]
88%
0.005 [ − 0.000, 0.011]
Audio (196)
10%
0.112
0.056
0.056 [0.043, 0.069]
72%
0.042 [0.033, 0.053]
20%
0.144
0.075
0.069 [0.055, 0.086]
75%
0.066 [0.051, 0.080]
Appendix
Table 7: Response-level results of OmniTrace at every budget. Drops are in nats per token. Lift >0 : share of the questions with a positive lift. Brackets: 95% bootstrap intervals.
Lift
OmniTrace − method (paired)
Modality
Budget
OmniTrace
Embedding
Leave-one-out
ContextCite
OT-trained
Embedding
Leave-one-out
ContextCite
OT-trained
Video
10%
0.007
0.002
0.014
0.013
0.006
0.005 [0.002, 0.008]
− 0.007 [ − 0.011, − 0.005]
− 0.006 [ − 0.008, − 0.004]
0.001 [ − 0.001, 0.003]
20%
0.016
0.008
0.016
0.016
0.014
0.008 [0.004, 0.012]
− 0.001 [ − 0.004, 0.004]
− 0.000 [ − 0.005, 0.007]
0.002 [ − 0.003, 0.009]
30%
0.020
0.012
0.019
0.022
0.018
0.008 [0.004, 0.013]
0.001 [ − 0.003, 0.006]
− 0.002 [ − 0.006, 0.002]
0.002 [ − 0.003, 0.009]
50%
0.027
0.019
0.020
0.031
0.023
0.008 [0.002, 0.015]
0.007 [0.003, 0.011]
− 0.004 [ − 0.009, 0.000]
0.004 [ − 0.003, 0.013]
Audio
10%
0.060
0.023
0.090
0.087
0.068
0.037 [0.025, 0.050]
− 0.030 [ − 0.038, − 0.023]
− 0.027 [ − 0.035, − 0.019]
− 0.008 [ − 0.013, − 0.003]
Appendix
Table 8: Lift of every method at every budget on Qwen2.5-Omni-7B, and the paired difference between OmniTrace and each baseline with its 95% bootstrap interval. OT-trained: OmniTrace-trained ( Appendix A ).
Model
Modality ( n )
Units labelled
No label
Lift
Keep gain
S-lift
S-spec
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
Video (244)
4.0 (10%)
2%
0.006 [0.003, 0.010]
0.046 [0.011, 0.111]
0.012 [0.009, 0.014]
0.007 [0.004, 0.010]
Audio (196)
2.6 (16%)
14%
0.079 [0.060, 0.098]
0.077 [0.060, 0.096]
0.125 [0.107, 0.143]
0.106 [0.082, 0.130]
Image–text (400)
3.1 (21%)
0%
0.364 [0.329, 0.403]
0.393 [0.353, 0.438]
0.411 [0.387, 0.434]
0.240 [0.214, 0.267]
MiniCPM-o 4.5
Video (233)
5.2 (13%)
0%
0.006 [0.002, 0.010]
0.006 [ − 0.004, 0.015]
0.014 [0.008, 0.020]
0.008 [0.001, 0.015]
Audio (187)
1.6 (15%)
0%
0.073 [0.047, 0.100]
0.042 [0.024, 0.063]
0.080 [0.059, 0.100]
0.047 [0.011, 0.085]
Image–text (400)
3.1 (21%)
0%
0.170 [0.140, 0.201]
0.149 [0.124, 0.178]
0.458 [0.437, 0.479]
0.344 [0.320, 0.369]
Appendix
Table 9: Causal test of the labels of Equation 3 at τ=1.5 . Units labelled: mean number per response and share of the candidate units. No label: responses whose response-level label is empty. Lift and keep gain compare the labelled units with random units of the same count.
Video
Audio
Image–text
Lift
Keep
S-lift
S-spec
Lift
Keep
S-lift
S-spec
Lift
Keep
S-lift
S-spec
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B ( n = 246, 196, 400)
OmniTrace
0.016
0.010
0.015
0.007
0.069
0.066
0.103
0.084
0.348
0.412
0.375
0.245
argmax tracing + curation
0.009 ↓
0.008
0.010 ↓
0.004 ↓
0.067
0.064
0.096 ↓
0.081
0.346
0.420
–
–
last layer only
0.014
0.010
–
–
0.048 ↓
0.046 ↓
–
–
0.306 ↓
0.380 ↓
–
–
per-token mean
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
0.224 ↓
0.255 ↓
0.286 ↓
0.214 ↓
Appendix
Table 10: OmniTrace on three models, variants that change one design choice, and human-marked evidence. Lift and Keep: lift and keep gain at response level (20% of the duration; 2 quotes); S-lift and S-spec: sentence lift and specificity, in nats per token. ↓ / ↑ : reliably lower / higher than OmniTrace on the same questions or sentences. Argmax tracing + curation traces each token to its highest-attention position and filters the votes; last layer only and per-token mean change one choice in Equation 2 . Human-evidence units hides the units annotators marked (not available for audio); their number differs from the budget, so their lift is against random sets of their own size.
Figure 6: Lift of argmax tracing with curation as a share of OmniTrace’s lift. In each panel the groups of bars are, from left to right, Qwen2.5-Omni-7B, on which the variant was developed, MiniCPM-o 4.5, and Qwen3-Omni-30B.
Ranking
ρ (score, size)
Top-1 size
Image share
OmniTrace (sum)
+ 0.51
1.94
0.59
Per-token mean
− 0.60
0.44
0.11
Leave-one-out
+ 0.09
1.62
0.48
ContextCite
+ 0.14
1.65
0.52
OmniTrace-trained
+ 0.08
1.71
0.52
Human evidence
+ 0.25
1.85
0.67
Appendix
Table 11: Unit size on image–text input (Qwen2.5-Omni-7B). ρ : rank correlation between a quote’s score and its token count, per question. Top-1 size: tokens of the top quote over the mean quote size. Image share: share of images among the top-ranked quotes.
Multimodal model interpretability studies how AI systems combine and use images, text, audio, video, and other signals, and how to explain their decisions.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) generate responses autoregressively, integrating visual and linguistic information in an evolving context. Prior work on interpretability has focused on individual layers and circuits (where), leaving the token-level dynamics of multimodal computation during generation (when) underexplored. We address this gap and study attention shifts as per semantic role; tracking model attention to image, text, instruction, and previously generated tokens, One Token at a Time (OTaT). We introduce multimodal tasks that require explicit switching between visual and textual context within a single response. Across two mainstream model families and four open-weight MLLMs of varying sizes, we establish consistent patterns: attention to image peaks at tokens requiring image-derived information, instruction tokens are revisited during task transitions, and attention to previously generated tokens increases as the generation progresses. Causal attention blocking interventions validate the functional role of these trends. We profile model behavior under disrupted attention and observe responses falling back to language priors, or exhibiting cross-modal leakage, denial, or recovery. Finally, informed of the attention dynamics through our novel analysis, we propose a simple test-time intervention to boost attention to the relevant modality at the right time, significantly improving multimodal task performance.
Large vision-language models (LVLMs) exhibit strong reasoning capabilities, yet the visual and textual evidence supporting the generated responses remains difficult to identify. Faithful token attribution explains an LVLM's response by assigning scores that rank image and prompt tokens by how much the model relies on them, such that removing higher-ranked tokens causes the likelihood of the generated response to drop more rapidly. However, existing token-attribution methods have been developed mainly for text-based language models, and our empirical study reveals two challenges when complex multimodal sources are involved. First, the joint image-text attribution can underrepresent visual evidence relative to text, obscuring the image regions supporting the response. Second, visual evidence may influence the generated response through multiple intermediate reasoning paths, while existing methods trace only a limited subset of these paths, causing important visual contributions to be underestimated. Motivated by these insights, we introduce VTrace, a multimodal token-attribution framework that traces input contributions through intermediate reasoning and calibrates attribution scores across modalities. VTrace constructs pairwise attributions that highlight token-specific contributions and aggregates all forward attribution paths in closed form to account for both direct and indirect contributions. Cross-modal calibration then rescales image and text attribution scores using modality contributions estimated from response-likelihood changes, enabling a unified ranking of input tokens. Evaluations against seven baselines across six visual reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the superior attribution faithfulness. Project page: https://vtrace-attribution.github.io/.
As grounded QA systems are increasingly deployed in AI assistants, accurately attributing generated answers to evidence is critical for user trust and model safety. While unimodal attributions have been explored in depth, the multimodal setting remains relatively under-researched. As a result, we introduce MultAttnAttrib, a training-free attribution-generation method that leverages a model's prefill pass, selected attention heads, and calibrated thresholds to locate source evidence within a document. To establish baseline results for the method, we introduce MultAttrEval, a complementary benchmark dataset annotated with fine-grained, ground-truth attributions for answer components grounded in multimodal source documents. To our knowledge, this is the first evaluation dataset designed specifically for multimodal attribution in long-form documents. Experimental results show that MultAttnAttrib consistently outperforms a variety of attribution-generation methods, including several strong prompting-based approaches and matches the latest frontier models such as GPT 5.4. Our method not only substantially improves attribution accuracy for both unimodal and multimodal attribution types, but also produces attributions at up to one-seventh of the direct inference latency compared to prompting on the same base model.
Dang Quang Thien Tran, Quang V. Dang, Vinamra Tyagi +7
University of Massachusetts, Amherst · 2Adobe Research, San Jose