Multimodal Model Interpretability
Overview
It asks which modalities, regions, tokens, concepts, or internal circuits support a model’s output, helping people audit errors, shortcuts, bias, and safety. Common approaches include saliency and Shapley attribution, concept bottlenecks and sparse autoencoders, and probing or causal interventions that test what happens when evidence is altered. Researchers evaluate these explanations on visual question answering, hallucination and grounding tasks, cross-modal benchmarks, and clinical settings where inputs may be missing or incomplete. A central tension is that an explanation can look plausible without being faithful: models may encode useful evidence yet ignore it, favor one modality, or rely on shortcuts, and evaluation of genuine cross-modal reasoning remains difficult.
Latest papers
130 papers13 papers in the last four weeks, down 7% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.