Recent multilingual vision--language encoders cover hundreds of languages in a single model, yet on two state-of-the-art instances retrieval on low-resource languages (LRL; e.g. Swahili) trails high-resource ones (HRL; e.g. English) by $30^+$\,pp. We ask where in the trained encoder this gap is located. Prior modality-gap and cross-lingual subspace work suggests a linear language direction at the output crowds out alignment-relevant geometry. We falsify this: LEACE drives the linear language classifier from $>99\%$ to near chance and iterated INLP to $37$--$50\%$ while LRL retrieval moves within $\pm 1.5$\,pp and all tier means within $2.2$\,pp, tracking random controls. The linear bias is a \emph{symptom}, not the cause. Instead, the alignment-causal factor lies along the encoder's forward path: the EOS (end-of-sequence) hidden state's per-language trajectory diverges with depth. Substituting the EOS with its parallel English value three blocks before the projector lifts Swahili from $22.1\%$ to $69.1\%$ on one encoder (and reproduces on the other); three controls rule out pooled-position tautology and English specificity. A front-layer trunk that pulls each language's projection toward the parallel-content centroid corroborates the diagnosis at training time, recovering $+9.6$ / $+17.1$\,pp on LRL XM3600 retrieval (1{,}000-image subset), with consistent gains across three further benchmarks while preserving HRL performance.
Shalom Kachko, Raz Lapid, Margarita Vald +2cs.AI cs.CL cs.CV
Vision-language models (VLMs) process image patches and text tokens in a shared residual stream, but the local geometry through which the two modalities interact remains poorly understood. Most interpretability methods identify global linear directions, which may miss representations that are globally high-dimensional but locally low-dimensional. We introduce LENS (Local Explanation of Neighborhood Subspaces), a method that decomposes VLM activations into local low-rank Gaussian neighborhoods using a Mixture of Factor Analyzers. Applied to LLaVA-1.5-7B and Qwen3-VL-8B, LENS reveals distinct depth-dependent fusion trajectories consistent with each model's fusion mechanism: LLaVA progressively mixes modalities at later layers, whereas Qwen3-VL mixes them early, partially re-segregates them, and recombines them near the output. An automated multimodal labeling pipeline assigns concise semantic descriptions to these neighborhoods. Interpolating activations toward neighborhood centroids causally redirects generation within and across modalities and outperforms difference-in-means and VL-SAE in most evaluated conditions; in one LLaVA vision-to-vision setting, MFA achieves 5.7 times the VL-SAE score. Human evaluation finds MFA steering competitive with prompting and substantially stronger than the other intervention baselines. Finally, the MFA coefficient space improves Qwen3-VL image-to-rendered-text retrieval at the deepest evaluated layer from 14.9% to 48.6% R@1. Ablations show that the reported fusion trajectories are stable across component counts, local ranks, and modality-purity thresholds. These results support local geometric neighborhoods as useful interpretable and causal units for analyzing cross-modal representations in the evaluated VLMs.
Vision-language models often use descriptions of earlier visual states to make decisions about the current scene. When the scene changes, stale language can redirect an otherwise correct visual judgment toward an outdated answer. We study this failure as visual lock-in in a controlled grounding setting where only the verbalized prior varies. Across models, stronger lock-in accompanies smaller changes in the model representation before the final answer. This reversal suggests that lock-in depends not on how far this representation moves, but on how that movement is organized. In models that are harder to correct, prior-induced changes concentrate along a compact set of directions that repeatedly appear across examples. We call these recurrent axes the Prior Directions. They recur on held-out examples, while a descriptive four-model comparison associates greater concentration with stronger lock-in. Controlled interventions show that removing the component aligned with the Prior Directions restores visual grounding, whereas removing an equally large orthogonal component has little effect. Prior control thus arises when prior-induced changes form a coherent and reusable pattern in the representation used to produce the answer. This account explains why the same prior remains revisable in one model yet becomes dominant in another.
Unified multimodal models (UMMs) aim to integrate understanding and generation within a single architecture, yet it remains unclear whether these capabilities share a unified and transferable semantic space. This question is fundamentally challenging, as the two branches operate over heterogeneous representations (text tokens vs.\ visual latents) and distinct training objectives, making direct comparison difficult. To address this, we introduce \emph{cross-branch semantic steering}, an intervention-based framework that extracts semantic directions from one branch and applies them to the other. We show that steering vectors learned from the understanding branch can transfer to generation, enabling controllable image synthesis and improved semantic faithfulness. In contrast, the reverse direction consistently shows limited effectiveness. Our analysis suggests that this asymmetry may be related to a practical representational mismatch: understanding-derived vectors capture transferable, object-centric semantics, while generation-derived vectors primarily encode low-level appearance features. Our results reveal that architectural unification does not guarantee semantic alignment, and establish cross-branch steering as a practical tool for probing multimodal representations.
Geospatial understanding is a critical yet underexplored dimension in the development of machine learning systems for tasks such as image geolocation and spatial reasoning. In this work, we analyze the geospatial representations acquired by three model families: vision-only architectures (e.g., ViT), vision-language models (e.g., CLIP), and large-scale multimodal foundation models (e.g., LLaVA, Qwen, and Gemma). By evaluating across image clusters, including people, landmarks, and everyday objects, grouped based on the degree of localizability, we reveal systematic gaps in spatial accuracy and show that textual supervision enhances the learning of geospatial representations. Our findings suggest the role of language as an effective complementary modality for encoding spatial context and multimodal learning as a key direction for advancing geospatial AI.