Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.13111

What Do Visual-Head Discovery Scores Actually Find? Attention Source, Necessity, and Random-Control Pitfalls in Vision-Language Models

Md Abdul Kadir·Daniel Sonntag
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Attention heads that attend to image regions relevant to a question are increasingly used to steer, ground and interpret vision-language models (VLMs) and to reduce their hallucinations. They are mostly found by ranking heads with an attention- pattern score and validated by steering or masking them. We ask how the choices inside such a discovery score shape the heads it returns, and which of the two validations identifies them. On Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct we vary the query type, the discovery corpus and the token positions whose attention is read (the attention source) in a full 2 x 3 x 2 design, and test all 12 head-sets for steerability (CERS: Contrastive Evidence-Region Steering score) and necessity (NCS: Necessity Con- trast Score) against layer-matched random head-sets. (1) The attention source and the query type reshape the selected heads far more than the corpus: changing the source keeps a median of 49 of the top-100 heads, the query 55 and the cor- pus 84, while two halves of the same data share 96-99. (2) Necessity follows the attention source: head-sets discovered from query-span attention are more nec- essary than last-token ones (difference 0.083, p=6 x 10^-10), and the two re- ferring + query-span sets lie 17-19 standard deviations above 250 layer-matched random sets (Holm-adjusted p=0.048). The referring + query-span effect re- plicates on several recent VLMs. (3) Steerability is not specific to the discovered heads: no discovered head-set steers better than its layer-matched random sets (rank p >= 0.14), and random sets drawn from the same or from any layer span the discovered sets' scores. Necessity therefore separates the discovery settings, while steering at this strength does not. We turn these findings into a protocol for reporting visual-head discoveries.

Explore related subjects

cs.CV

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Md Abdul Kadir, Daniel Sonntag. 2026-10-09. What Do Visual-Head Discovery Scores Actually Find? Attention Source, Necessity, and Random-Control Pitfalls in Vision-Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.13111

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Perspective-1-Ellipsoid: Formulation, Analysis and Solutions of the Camera Pose Estimation Problem from One Ellipse-Ellipsoid Correspondence

In computer vision, camera pose estimation from correspondences between 3D geometric entities and their projections into the image has been a widely investigated problem. Although most state-of-the-art methods exploit low-level primitives such as points or lines, the emergence of very effective CNN-based object detectors in the recent years has paved the way to the use of higher-level features carrying semantically meaningful information. Pioneering works in that direction have shown that modelling 3D objects by ellipsoids and 2D detections by ellipses offers a convenient manner to link 2D and 3D data. However, the mathematical formalism most often used in the related litterature does not enable to easily distinguish ellipsoids and ellipses from other quadrics and conics, leading to a loss of specificity potentially detrimental in some developments. Moreover, the linearization process of the projection equation creates an over-representation of the camera parameters, also possibly causing an efficiency loss. In this paper, we therefore introduce an ellipsoid-specific theoretical framework and demonstrate its beneficial properties in the context of pose estimation. More precisely, we first show that the proposed formalism enables to reduce the pose estimation problem to a position or orientation-only estimation problem in which the remaining unknowns can be derived in closed-form. Then, we demonstrate that it can be further reduced to a 1 Degree-of-Freedom (1DoF) problem and provide the analytical derivations of the pose as a function of that unique scalar unknown. We illustrate our theoretical considerations by visual examples and include a discussion on the practical aspects. Finally, we release this paper along with the corresponding source code in order to contribute towards more efficient resolutions of ellipsoid-related pose estimation problems.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2026

Optimising for the Unknown: Domain Alignment for Cephalometric Landmark Detection

Cephalometric Landmark Detection is the process of identifying key areas for cephalometry. Each landmark is a single GT point labelled by a clinician. A machine learning model predicts the probability locus of a landmark represented by a heatmap. This work, for the 2024 CL-Detection MICCAI Challenge, proposes a domain alignment strategy with a regional facial extraction module and an X-ray artefact augmentation procedure. The challenge ranks our method's results as the best in MRE of 1.186mm and third in the 2mm SDR of 82.04% on the online validation leaderboard. The code is available at https://github.com/Julian-Wyatt/OptimisingfortheUnknown.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2026

Understanding Transformer-based Vision Models through Inversion

Understanding the internal mechanisms of deep neural networks remains a central challenge in machine learning. In computer vision, one promising yet only preliminarily explored approach is feature inversion via inverse networks, which reconstructs images from intermediate representations using trained inverse networks. In this study, we revisit feature inversion via inverse networks, introducing a novel, modular variant that enables a computationally more efficient application of the technique while, in some cases, producing semantically more coherent image reconstructions. We apply our method to large-scale transformer-based vision models, specifically Detection Transformer, Vision Transformer, Swin Transformer, and Data-Efficient Image Transformer, analyzing the resulting reconstructions across network depth. Our main analysis compares Detection Transformer and Vision Transformer, which exhibit the most informative differences among the evaluated architectures. At the same time, results for Swin Transformer and Data-Efficient Image Transformer support the broader applicability of our framework. Our findings reveal gradual representational changes across transformer layers as a shared characteristic of Detection Transformer and Vision Transformer, as well as systematic differences in how they preserve contextual shape and fine-grained image details, and in their robustness to color perturbations. These findings deepen understanding of transformer-based vision models and demonstrate the utility of modular feature inversion as an interpretability tool.

cs.CV↗