Multimodal Model Diffing for Feature Discovery and Control
Authors: Hunar Batra, Lachin Naghashyar, Ashkan Khakzar, Philip Torr, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Constantin Venhoff, Ronald Clark
Organizations: University of Oxford · Microsoft
Abstract
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit strong visual understanding, yet the internal features that cause these behaviors remain difficult to identify, audit, or control. While applicable to post-hoc inspection, hidden states that are decomposed into interpretable feature directions using sparse autoencoders (SAEs) neither readily isolate which features are changed by multimodal training, nor are they directly useful for targeted control. We introduce MMDiff, a multimodal model-diffing framework that trains multimodal SAEs and turns them into feature-level interfaces for discovering and controlling multimodal behavior. MMDiff supports three uses: (i) feature isolation, by diffing a base-LM SAE against its multimodal-adapted counterpart to identify features altered by multimodal training; (ii) task-specific feature detection, via per-token contrastive firing analysis that isolates causal features; and (iii) feature-level control, by causally removing or steering the discovered feature directions. We train multimodal SAEs for three MLLM families, LLaVA-MORE, PaliGemma 2, and InternVL3.5, and evaluate on visual-spatial understanding, multimodal safety, and OCR. MMDiff discovers sparse, causally specific features whose removal selectively degrades target behaviors by an average of 12% on spatial tasks and 17% on OCR, and reduces attack success rate by 24% on multimodal safety attacks, with no impact on VQA performance. Steering these features improves spatial and OCR accuracy by +3.6% and +1.8% on average over a standard single-layer steering baseline. These results show that multimodal SAEs can serve not only as interpretability tools, but as mechanisms for auditing, steering, and controlling MLLMs behavior toward safer and more capable generations.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) increasingly support high-stakes decision making by combining complementary information from images and text. While existing explainability methods identify influential image regions or text tokens, they cannot answer a fundamental question: which modality drives a prediction? Consequently, a model may produce the correct output while relying on the wrong source of evidence, masking shortcut learning and unsafe reasoning. We formulate modality attribution as a complementary explainability objective for multimodal foundation models and propose Counterfactual Modality Attribution (CMA), the first framework for quantifying modality-level contributions in MLLMs. CMA generates image-only, text-only, and joint multimodal counterfactuals using coupled diffusion priors and converts them into principled modality attribution scores through a cooperative game-theoretic formulation based on Shapley values. We evaluate CMA on controlled synthetic benchmarks with known ground-truth modality reliance and on a real-world multimodal clinical dataset. CMA correctly identifies the decision-driving modality in 98% of controlled cases and consistently outperforms baselines, revealing failures of cross-modal reasoning that remain invisible to predictive accuracy alone. Our results establish modality attribution as a complementary dimension of explainability beyond feature attribution, providing a principled framework for auditing multimodal foundation models in safety-critical applications.
Vahidin Hasic, Chao Wang, Luis C. Garcia-Peraza-Herrera +2
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often fail to transfer safety capabilities learned in the text modality to semantically equivalent non-text inputs, revealing a persistent multimodal safety gap. We study this gap from a representation-geometric perspective by analyzing a text-aligned refusal direction and a modality-induced drift direction. We show that multimodal inputs compress the usable separation along the refusal direction, making it no longer reliable for identifying and refusing harmful inputs. We refer to this failure mode as Safety Geometry Collapse. We quantify it through conditional refusal separability and show that stronger modality-induced drift is consistently associated with weaker refusal separability and higher attack success rates. We then validate the causal role of modality-induced drift through a fixed-strength activation intervention: counteracting the estimated drift restores refusal separability and improves multimodal safety. After drift correction, we further observe self-rectification, where the model recovers its ability to recognize and refuse harmful multimodal inputs during forward dynamics. This effect also provides an internal signal of the model's perceived harmfulness of each input. Motivated by this signal, we propose ReGap, a training-free inference-time method that adaptively corrects modality drift using self-rectification. Experiments across multiple multimodal safety benchmarks and utility benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of ReGap, which significantly improves the safety of MLLMs without compromising general capabilities. Our findings highlight representation-level modality alignment as a crucial direction for real-time safety improvement and for building safer, more reliable MLLMs.
Safety evaluation of multimodal large language models requires tracking not only whether an attack succeeds, but also how the interaction unfolds across turns and input modalities. We present MUSE (Multimodal Unified Safety Evaluation), an open-source, browser-based, run-centric platform for multimodal safety evaluation. MUSE treats each attack run as the persistent unit of execution, inspection, and analysis, preserving its configuration, multi-turn trajectory, delivered modalities and media, target responses, and safety judgments. A five-level response taxonomy further distinguishes full Compliance from Partial Compliance and refusal behavior, yielding hard ASR, soft ASR, and gray-zone width (GZW). Across 11,700 evaluations on six multimodal LLMs, direct text-only requests yield only 3.1% macro hard ASR and 4.4% soft ASR, while iterative attack procedures are substantially more effective. Attack effectiveness also varies substantially with the attacker backbone. In contrast, Inter-Turn Modality Switching (ITMS), evaluated as a controlled delivery-modality probe, does not consistently increase attack success. These results demonstrate the value of run-centric, fine-grained evaluation for characterizing multimodal safety behavior beyond a single binary success metric.