Cross-Modal Latent Influence: Patch-Level Training Sample Attribution for Vision-Language Models
Authors: Laura Yao, Shixing Yu, Jie Peng, Promit Ghosal, Kyra Gan, Tianlong Chen
Organizations: UNITES Lab, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · Electrical and Computer Engineering, Cornell Tech · Foci Labs · Department of Statistics, University of Chicago · Operations Research and Industrial Engineering, Cornell Tech
Explaining a vision--language model (VLM) prediction requires tracing training-example influence to the multimodal evidence that mediates it, yet existing attribution methods largely operate only at the sample level. Recent latent-mediated influence methods provide feature-level attribution in language models, but lack the multimodal and spatial structure needed to ground influence in VLMs. We introduce MOSAIC (Multimodal Orthogonalized Sparse Autoencoders for Influence Characterization). It learns a shared sparse image--text latent space whose concepts are 1) sparse within each modality, 2) supported on contiguous image regions, 3) aligned to the phrases that describe them, and 4) approximately decorrelated. It then applies EK-FAC to decompose training-example influence through these concepts and localize their contributions to specific text phrases and image regions. We evaluate MOSAIC on Qwen and Gemma across captioning, chest X-ray understanding, and visual question answering. The learned features are more localized and coherent without degrading task behavior, and ablating influence-ranked latents changes model outputs more than ablating latents ranked by activation or frequency. We find that visual evidence can substantially reorganize training-data attribution while preserving more of the shared latent structure. MOSAIC thus connects where model behavior comes from with what multimodal evidence carries that influence.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Input attribution localizes evidence but lacks training-data specific attribution. (b) Multimodal SAEs expose internal concepts without tracing their training origins. (c) Latent influence traces training examples through features but lacks multimodal grounding. (d) MOSAIC connects influential training examples to sparse multimodal concepts and localized evidence.
Figure 2: Overview of MOSAIC. (a) Intermediate VLM image and text representations. (b) Shared TopK SAE with a common sparse dictionary. (c) Spatially structured sparsity for region-coherent visual features. (d) Contrastive phrase–region alignment using frozen VLM attention. (e) Latent decorrelation for a better-separated attribution space. (f) EK-FAC influence tracing predictions to training examples, latents, phrases, and image regions.
Dataset
Model
Metric
Base
FT
+SAE
VizWiz
Qwen
CIDEr
0.0738
0.7569
0.7471
VizWiz
Gemma
CIDEr
0.0686
0.5799
0.5793
CheXpert
Qwen
Acc.
0.3320
0.4290
0.4295
CheXpert
Gemma
Acc.
0.0040
0.4530
0.4560
GQA
Qwen
Acc.
0.5943
0.6513
0.6361
GQA
Gemma
Acc.
0.4019
0.5914
0.5867
Table 1: Task performance before and after SAE insertion. CIDEr for caption similarity to human references; accuracy is used for chest X-ray classification and VQA.
Figure 3: Comparison on CheXpert. Highlighted regions and words indicate latent activations. (a) Base SAE yields diffuse support and weaker radiological alignment. (b) Ours improves localization and clinically relevant alignment.
Figure 4: Latent breakdown for a VizWiz example with Qwen. The top two latents following Fig. 9 capture medicine- and bottle-related evidence; highlighted regions and words indicate representative activations.
Figure 8: Effect of removing visual evidence on VizWiz influence rankings with Qwen. (a) Latent rankings remain relatively stable. (b) Training-example rankings change substantially.
Figure 9: Training-example breakdown for a VizWiz example with Qwen. Training examples are ranked by influence; we show the top contributing latents, with peak image activations and caption words. Additional results are in the appendix.
Table 4: Full VizWiz captioning results. We report CIDEr, METEOR, BLEU-1–4, and ROUGE-L. “Prompted” uses the task-specific captioning prompt, while “zero-shot” denotes evaluation without task-specific prompting.
Dataset
Metric
Text
Pre-latent
SAE latent
VizWiz
Near-orthogonal ( ∣ρ∣<0.1 ) ↑
7.6%
20.8%
99.5%
Mean ∣offdiag(G)∣↓
0.798
0.280
0.0020
Mean offdiag(G)2↓
0.751
0.115
0.0008
Stable rank (raw / norm.)
1.16/0.0053
4.01/0.0020
9.93/0.0012
CheXpert
Near-orthogonal ( ∣ρ∣<0.1 ) ↑
24.9%
25.4%
99.2%
Mean ∣offdiag(G)∣↓
0.510
0.239
0.0036
Appendix
Table 5: Orthogonality of Qwen representations before and after SAE encoding at layer ℓ=15 ( dlatent=8192 , k=128 ).
Setting
SAE Layer
GQA Acc.
Base model
–
0.4019
Fine-tuned model
–
0.5914
Fine-tuned + SAE
19
0.5867
Fine-tuned + SAE
12
0.3315
Appendix
Table 6: Sensitivity of Gemma on GQA to SAE placement.
Dataset / Model
Pool J.
Latent ρ
Example ρunion
Example ρshared
Top-8
GQA / Qwen
0.123
0.599
−0.564
0.260
0.073
GQA / Gemma
0.051
0.543
−0.755
0.183
0.000
VizWiz / Qwen
0.021
0.584
−0.793
0.279
0.010
VizWiz / Gemma
0.052
0.571
−0.774
−0.063
0.000
CheXpert / Qwen
0.145
0.737
−0.606
0.570
0.031
CheXpert / Gemma
0.026
0.795
−0.797
0.850
0.000
Appendix
Table 7: Influence with and without visual evidence. Latent ρ compares absolute latent influence, example ρunion compares training examples active in either condition, and example ρshared is restricted to candidates retrieved in both conditions.
Figure 11: Example latent comparison on VizWiz. (a) Base SAE. (b) Our approach. Our latent exhibits a clearer semantic association and more spatially coherent visual support, while the base latent activates more diffusely across the image.
Figure 12: Example latents on GQA. Representative latents learned by our approach exhibits a meaningful semantic association together with localized activation over the corresponding visual evidence.
Figure 13: Detailed latent decomposition for a VizWiz medicine example. Representative test latents capture complementary evidence including the bottle , medicine -related semantics, and the hand holding the medicine . The localized activations show that the representation separates object identity, semantic function, and relevant object–person interaction while remaining grounded in the corresponding image regions.
Figure 14: Detailed latent decomposition for a VizWiz eye-drop example. The learned latents recover the central semantics of the test image, including eyes , eye drops , and bottle , while also representing localized contextual evidence such as the wooden table on which the object appears. This example illustrates how distinct latents jointly encode both answer-relevant concepts and faithful scene context.
Figure 15: Influential training examples for a VizWiz screen query. The test example contains a screen, and the highest-influence training examples consistently exhibit closely related screen or display content. This qualitative consistency shows that influential examples reflect the salient visual semantics of the test input.
Figure 16: Influential training examples for a GQA clothing query. The test question asks what the man is wearing, with jeans as the predicted answer. The top three influential training examples are all associated with jeans , directly matching the answer semantics of the test query.
Figure 17: Influential training examples for a GQA identity query. The test question asks who is looking out the window, with man as the answer. The highlighted answers in the highest-influence training examples are likewise man , demonstrating strong agreement between the training supervision and the test prediction.
Figure 18: Influential training examples for a CheXpert cardiomegaly prediction. The correctly predicted cardiomegaly case receives support from training examples spanning multiple queried findings, including cardiomegaly and other cardiopulmonary abnormalities. This illustrates that influence is not determined solely by exact diagnostic-label matching.
Figure 19: Influential training examples for a CheXpert edema prediction. The highest-influence example is queried for consolidation but its report describes pulmonary vascular congestion, providing evidence closely related to edema. The ranking therefore captures clinically relevant cross-label correspondence rather than only exact label agreement.
Figure 20: Influential training examples for a CheXpert pleural effusion prediction. The influential set contains both a directly matching pleural-effusion example and examples associated with other thoracic findings, demonstrating a mixture of direct and cross-label support for the prediction.
Method
Alive
Balance ↑
Footprint ↓
Contig. ↓
Word conc. ↓
Img. tok./fire ↓
MOSAIC
8156
26.7
8.3%
0.548
0.219
3.30
JSAE
99
3.3
100%
1.000
0.552
192
SPARC
69
0.0
100%
1.001
0.992
192
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison with pooled multimodal SAE baselines on VizWiz with Qwen. Balance is computed over selective live latents. Footprint measures the fraction of the image patch grid activated by a latent, and contiguity is normalized against a size-matched random support. Lower footprint, contiguity, and word concentration indicate more selective features.
Forward path
Mean CE ↓
Δ
Identity (no SAE)
1.848
−0.180
MOSAIC
2.027
0
JSAE
9.464
+7.44
Mean-broadcast control
10.462
+8.43
SPARC
12.691
+10.66
Appendix
Table 9: Effect of inserting each dictionary position-wise into the VLM forward path. Mean cross-entropy is evaluated over 60 VizWiz validation examples. Δ is relative to MOSAIC.
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/.
Vision-language models (VLMs) are powerful but remain opaque black boxes. We introduce the first framework for transparent circuit tracing in VLMs to systematically analyze multimodal reasoning. By utilizing transcoders, attribution graphs, and attention-based methods, we uncover how VLMs hierarchically integrate visual and semantic concepts. We reveal that distinct visual feature circuits can handle mathematical reasoning and support cross-modal associations. Validated through feature steering and circuit patching, our framework proves these circuits are causal and controllable, laying the groundwork for more explainable and reliable VLMs.
Jingcheng Yang, Tianhu Xiong, Shengyi Qian +2
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Independent Researcher
Vision-language models can describe an image with remarkable accuracy, yet a more fundamental question remains unanswered: what visual information actually drives their answers? In this work, we investigate this question through causal tracing, and we observe that highly causal vision tokens often lie outside the target region. Extending the analysis to larger vision-language models reveals a similar pattern across models and corruption settings, suggesting that strong multimodal performance does not necessarily imply spatially localized causal representations. We further investigate: can these models preserve visual structure when appearance cues are removed? and find that visual cues are exploited to understand visual structures. Together, our experiments expose a gap between seeing, using, and reasoning over visual structure, and provide a causal framework for studying how visual information is transformed, preserved, and ultimately used by modern vision-language models.
Naren Kumar S, Tirth Bhatt, Mayank Singh
LINGO Research Group, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, India