cs.AIOct 27, 2026

Beyond the Readout: A Latent Numerical Frame Shared Across Modality and Operation

Authors: Oriol Juan Sabater, Alex Ferrando de las Morenas, Pau Rodríguez, Xavier Suau

Organizations: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona · Apple

Abstract

When a multimodal model computes 17+35 from text or 91-39 from a rendered image, it produces the same answer, 52. Does it use one internal concept of number for both, or separate machinery for each path? Similarity metrics such as RSA or CKA cannot settle this question. They give the same score to identical and to rotated directions, and two representations can look alike only because both prepare the same output digits. We therefore use causal interventions. For four conditions (text or image, addition or subtraction), we learn a small subspace of Gemma4-12B-it's residual stream in which swapping coordinates swaps the model's answer. The subspaces answer three questions. First, do the conditions write numbers along the same directions? They do not. Reusing a subspace from text in an image on the same operation recovers only 53.2% of its causal effect. A single rotation and rescaling maps one subspace onto the other and raises recovery to 91.4%, so the conditions share one geometry expressed in different coordinates. Second, does this shared geometry only reflect the digit the model is about to print? To test this, we split each subspace into 9 directions that the output layer reads to choose the next digit and 13 directions that it cannot see. The 13 hidden directions still carry the number, yet changing them barely alters the digit being written. Third, what are these hidden directions for? A model must emit a multi-digit answer one digit at a time, so it can compute the full result early and keep it in reserve. When two numbers share their first digit, swapping the number in the hidden directions leaves the digit being written intact and redirects the next digit in 77.6% of cases. The model thus forms an abstract numerical concept upstream and unfolds it across time: multimodal representations share meaning through relational geometry across distinct coordinate frames.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables27 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Apr 20, 2026

Multiplication in Multimodal LLMs: Computation with Text, Image, and Audio Inputs

Multimodal LLMs can accurately perceive numerical content across modalities yet fail to perform exact multi-digit multiplication when the identical underlying arithmetic problem is presented as numerals, number words, images, or in audio form. Because existing benchmarks often lack systematically paired instances across modalities, it remains difficult to compare genuine arithmetic limits within and across model families. We therefore introduce a controlled multimodal multiplication benchmark that factorially varies digit length, digit sparsity, representation (e.g., numerals vs. number words), and modality (text, rendered images, audio), with paired instances from a reproducible generator. We also define arithmetic load, C, as the product of the total and non-zero digit count as a compact, mechanistically motivated proxy for operation count. Across evaluations, accuracy falls sharply as C grows, often nearing zero by C > 100. Indeed, C remains predictive of performance across modalities and models, with R-squared often > 0.5, nearing the value from more complex measures of arithmetic load that count the number of intermediate arithmetic steps. A separate perception-versus-computation decomposition shows that multimodal degradation is primarily computational rather than perceptual: on matched-perception checks, models are near-perfect (> 99%) across modalities, even when multiplication accuracy drops. Beyond measuring when models fail, we ask which procedures they are predisposed to follow. We introduce a forced-completion loss probe that scores heuristic-specific reasoning prefixes--including columnar multiplication, distributive decomposition, and rounding/compensation. Here, decomposition is favored in both text and vision modalities; heuristic-specific LoRA adapters produce near-orthogonal updates yet degrade accuracy, indicating the base model maintains a well-tuned internal router.
Oct 2, 2025

What MLLMs Learn about When they Learn about Multimodal Reasoning

Evaluation of multimodal reasoning models is typically reduced to a single accuracy score, implicitly treating reasoning as a unitary capability. We introduce MathLens, a benchmark of textbook-style geometry problems that exposes this assumption by operationally decomposing performance into perception, reasoning, and multimodal-specific components. Each problem is derived from a symbolic specification and accompanied by visual diagrams, text-only variants, multimodal questions, and targeted perceptual probes, enabling controlled measurement of each component. Using this decomposition, we show that common training strategies are associated with systematically different capability profiles that are invisible under aggregate accuracy. Across the models we study, reinforcement learning primarily improves perceptual grounding and robustness to diagram variation, while our analysis suggests that textual SFT yields gains through reflective reasoning. In contrast, as perception and reasoning improve, a growing fraction of remaining errors fall outside these components and are categorized as multimodal-specific. These results suggest that apparent progress in multimodal reasoning reflects shifting balances among subskills rather than uniform advancement, motivating evaluation beyond scalar accuracy.
Mar 10, 2026

Reading, Not Thinking: Understanding and Bridging the Modality Gap When Text Becomes Pixels in Multimodal LLMs

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process text presented as images, yet they often perform worse than when the same content is provided as textual tokens. We systematically diagnose this "modality gap" by evaluating seven MLLMs across seven benchmarks in five input modes, spanning both synthetically rendered text and realistic document images from arXiv PDFs to Wikipedia pages. We find that the gap is highly sensitive to rendering choices such as font and resolution, and that natural document images often exhibit much smaller gaps, suggesting the performance difference partly reflects evaluation artifacts rather than fundamental limitations. Through a grounded-theory error analysis of over 4,000 examples, we identify the primary cause: image input alone suppresses reasoning effort, with models producing 5--19x shorter outputs that skip step-by-step computation or reasoning. The reluctance to reason, not a failure of perception or knowledge retrieval, drives the performance gap, particularly on tasks requiring multi-step reasoning. We show that a simple, lightweight on-policy self-distillation method by fine-tuning models on their own text-mode reasoning traces paired with image inputs closes this gap, raising image-mode accuracy to match or exceed text-mode performance with over 50% improvement, and the gains transfer to unseen benchmarks without catastrophic forgetting. Overall, our results and analyses provide a systematic understanding of the modality gap and suggest a practical path toward improving visual text understanding in multimodal language models.