Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

$\textit{Revelio}$: Interpreting and leveraging semantic information in diffusion models

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Sparse autoencoders on diffusion features isolate monosemantic visual concepts, and a lightweight probe on the best layer beats prior diffusion-feature classifiers.

desk verdict Useful transfer-learning recipe and a genuinely systematic k-SAE analysis, but the quantitative interpretability metric is undefined as written and should not be used to rank layers until it is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16725 v3 pith:I7KEYSKB submitted 2024-11-23 cs.CV

Dahye Kim , Xavier Thomas , Deepti Ghadiyaram This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV MSC 68T0768T45
keywords diffusionmodelsinterpretabilityk-sparseautoencodersmonosemanticfeaturesrepresentationlearningtransferfeaturegranularityDiff-C
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that diffusion models, trained only to denoise images, nonetheless organize their internal activations into discrete, interpretable visual concepts, and that k-sparse autoencoders (k-SAE) can surface these concepts. It further claims that a lightweight convolutional classifier, Diff-C, placed on the single best layer and timestep (up_ft1 at t=25) outperforms all prior diffusion-feature classifiers on Oxford-IIIT Pet and FGVC-Aircraft, with a roughly four-order-of-magnitude inference speedup over the strongest baseline. The motivation is that if generative models encode semantic structure in a layer-specific way, interpretation is directly reusable: the same features that explain neurons also transfer to classification and visual reasoning. The analysis also maps how granularity shifts with layer depth, denoising timestep, architecture, and text conditioning, tying each observation to measurable transfer performance.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the k-sparse autoencoder (k-SAE), a network whose hidden layer retains only the top k activations (here k=32) and is trained to reconstruct spatially-pooled diffusion activations from a chosen layer and timestep. The top-k constraint forces each hidden unit to specialize, so the decoder's feature directions become candidate monosemantic visual concepts. The paper pairs this with Diff-C, a four-layer convolutional probe with global pooling and a classification head, which measures whether the same frozen diffusion features transfer to downstream tasks. Together they support the inference that the concepts found by the SAE are real properties of the diffusion representation, not artifacts of the dictionary learning.

What would settle it

Recompute σ_label with an explicit, justified label-to-number mapping, or replace it with a categorical purity measure such as normalized mutual information, on the same k-SAE activations; if the ordering of layers and timesteps by purity changes materially, the granularity story loses its quantitative support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a pre-trained diffusion model's intermediate features are not a monolithic representation but a depth-dependent hierarchy of visual concepts, from coarse composition at the bottleneck to breed-level details at up_ft1 and back to texture-like patterns at up_ft2. Using k=32 sparse autoencoders, the authors isolate neurons that fire on images sharing a single property, such as a specific dog breed or a grass background, and quantify this purity with a label-purity metric. Consistent with the visualizations, Diff-C achieves 88.69% on Oxford-IIIT Pet and 65.07% on FGVC-Aircraft using up_ft1 features at t=25 with an empty prompt, improving on the best reported diffusion-feature classifier numbers by +1.39 and +39.03 percentage points respectively. The paper also finds that coarse-grained datasets such as Caltech-101 and ImageNet are better served by bottleneck features, that earlier timesteps favor fine-grained tasks while t=200 works for Caltech-101, that SD 1.5 captures more class-specific information than SD 2.1, and that the middle block of the transformer-based DiT plays the role that up_ft1 plays in the U-Net. These results are taken as evidence that diffusion models store semantically meaningful, transferable visual features that can be retrieved without distillation or task-specific losses.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative granularity results depend on σ_label, a purity metric computed as the average standard deviation of class labels among a neuron's top-activating images, but class labels are category names and the paper never specifies how those names are mapped to numbers before taking the standard deviation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Diffusion features can be used as off-the-shelf representations for classification without distillation, extra losses, or synthetic data generation, because Diff-C trains only a small probe on frozen features.
  • Feature selection can be guided by interpretability: choosing up_ft1 at t=25 for fine-grained tasks and bottleneck features for coarse tasks yields better transfer than using a fixed layer.
  • The layer-granularity tradeoff generalizes across backbones but shifts location: the U-Net's sweet spot is up_ft1, while the transformer-based DiT's sweet spot is its middle block.
  • Diffusion features complement CLIP in multimodal reasoning, improving the LLaVA-Bench relative score from 56.6 to 59.9 when interleaved, whereas DINOv2 features do not.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the label-purity metric is a valid proxy for semantic granularity, the same measurement could be used to pick the best layer and timestep per dataset without training any classifier, an automated extension the paper does not pursue.
  • The observation that class-specific information peaks in the middle of the network in both U-Net and DiT hints that semantic abstraction follows a similar depth-dependent curve in other generative backbones, a pattern worth testing on newer architectures.
  • If k-SAE neurons genuinely isolate monosemantic concepts, then activating or suppressing specific neurons should produce targeted semantic edits in generated images, a direct causal test the paper does not run.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies how visual semantic information is organized inside frozen diffusion models. It trains k-sparse autoencoders on intermediate activations from different layers and timesteps, and quantifies the "granularity" of the discovered features with a label-purity metric (σ_label) defined as the average standard deviation of class labels for the top-activating images. The paper also introduces Diff-C, a lightweight convolutional classifier applied to diffusion features, and reports transfer-learning results on Oxford-IIIT Pet, FGVC-Aircraft, Caltech-101, and a LLaVA visual-reasoning setup. The main claims are that semantic granularity varies nonlinearly across layers and timesteps, that this variation depends on architecture and pretraining, and that Diff-C on the up_ft1 layer at t=25 outperforms previous diffusion-feature classifiers, with large gains on FGVC-Aircraft.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would be a useful contribution to diffusion-model interpretability and to the study of diffusion features as visual representations. The k-SAE analysis across multiple architectures and datasets, the qualitative visualizations, and the lightweight Diff-C probe are valuable and largely independent of the specific metric used. The transfer-learning results, especially on FGVC-Aircraft, are suggestive and worth pursuing. The main quantitative interpretability metric is currently under-specified, and the comparison to prior work conflates supervised and zero-shot settings, so the significance is conditional on fixing these issues. The paper also contains a clear quantitative overstatement about inference speedup.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Table 2] σ_label is not well-defined as written. Class labels are categorical strings, and a standard deviation over strings requires a label-to-number mapping that is never specified. If the mapping is the dataset's integer class ids, the metric's scale depends on an arbitrary ordering of the class names; for Oxford-IIIT Pet the ordering is alphabetical, so alphabetically adjacent breeds contribute small distances while semantically similar but alphabetically distant breeds contribute large distances. All layer- and timestep-granularity conclusions in Secs. 4.3-4.5 and Table 2 rest on this metric, and the paper explicitly states in Sec. 4.2 that GPT-4o predictions can be noisy and that it "primarily relied on label purity (σ_label) for accurate quantification." Please replace σ_label with a label-encoding-independent measure such as the entropy of the top-activating label distribution, report error bars or bootstrap intervals, and re-run the analyses. The reported between-layer differences on Oxford-IIIT Pet (8.59, 9.48, 9.67, 9.90) are also small relative to the approximate uniform-random baseline of about 10.7 for 37 classes, and no variance is reported.
  2. [Sec. 4.7, Table 5] The claimed state-of-the-art improvement over [33] is based on a comparison between a supervised classifier and zero-shot classifiers. Diff-C is trained on target-dataset labels, whereas the Diffusion Classifier of [33] is a zero-shot text-conditioned likelihood classifier. The +1.39% on Oxford-IIIT Pet and +39.03% on FGVC-Aircraft are therefore not apples-to-apples, and the phrase "significantly better than the best reported numbers in [33]" overstates the comparison. Please benchmark Diff-C against standard supervised transfer baselines (e.g., linear probes on CLIP and DINOv2 features, or fine-tuned classifiers) or explicitly reframe the contribution as a study of simple probes on diffusion features relative to zero-shot baselines. The comparison also confounds model choice (SD-2.0 vs SD-1.5) and text conditioning (prompt vs empty prompt).
  3. [Abstract, Sec. 4.7] The claimed "4 orders of magnitude inference speedup" is not supported by the reported timings. The paper states that the diffusion classifier from [33] takes about 24 sec/sample and Diff-C takes about 0.13 sec/sample, which is a factor of about 185, i.e., roughly two orders of magnitude, not four. Please correct this statement in the abstract and in Sec. 4.7.
  4. [Sec. 4.3, Sec. 4.5] The k-SAE is trained on activations from the same target dataset used to compute σ_label, and no held-out split is described for the interpretability evaluation. Because the k-SAE has seen those activations during training, the top-activating images may partly reflect memorization of the training set rather than generalizable semantic structure. The Diff-C transfer results are on held-out test splits and are independent, but the interpretability claims in Secs. 4.3-4.5 would be materially strengthened by reporting σ_label on a validation split or by cross-validating the feature-selection procedure.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.4, Table 2b] The text says features are extracted at t = {25, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500}, but Table 2b lists t = 0 and t = 500 and omits t = 400; please reconcile the listed timesteps.
  2. [Sec. 4.7, Table 5] The parameter counts in Table 5 are inconsistent with the text: the paper describes Diff-C as a 40M-parameter model, but Table 5 lists "Diff-C (upft1)" with 800M parameters, likely mixing the frozen diffusion backbone with the trained classifier. Please clarify what parameter count is being reported and how it affects the lightweight-claim.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3)] The TopK function is not formally defined, and k is described only as empirically set to 32. A short definition and a sensitivity analysis over k would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the k-SAE interpretability analysis and Diff-C transfer results are empirically corroborated rather than derived from their inputs, with the undefined σ_label semantics flagged as a validity concern rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical chain—train a k-SAE on diffusion activations, measure neuron label purity, and train light-weight Diff-C classifiers on held-out splits—contains no step that reduces a prediction to its input by construction. The k-SAE is trained without using class labels ('We stress that the class labels are not used for training but only to measure activated neurons’ purity'), and σ_label is a post-hoc evaluation metric, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The layer/timestep rankings from σ_label are corroborated, not derived, by independent Diff-C accuracy on external benchmarks and by comparison to the external baseline [33]; no equation in Sec. 3 equates the interpretability metric with the transfer result. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the SAE methods are cited from external prior work [11,16,39,59], and [33] is an external baseline. The paper's own caveat that 'GPT-4o predictions can be noisy, hence we primarily relied on label purity (σ_label)' points to a genuine measurement-validity concern—σ_label averages standard deviations over categorical class labels without specifying a label-to-number mapping (Sec. 4.2)—but that is a reproducibility and semantic-validity issue, not a circular reduction of the paper's claims to its inputs. The transfer-learning results (Diff-C on Oxford-IIIT Pet, FGVC-Aircraft, Caltech-101, and LLaVA-Bench/MM-Vet) stand independently of the interpretability metric.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on several domain assumptions: that diffusion activations carry semantics, that k-SAEs recover them, and that the evaluation metrics (σ_label, GPT-4o judgment, PCA) are valid. The only free parameters are the k-SAE hyperparameters (k=32, expansion factor 64), both chosen by hand. No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • k (top-k active neurons in k-SAE) = 32
    Chosen empirically for training stability and sparsity (Sec. 4.1). Changes which features are isolated; all interpretability results depend on this choice. No ablation across k is reported.
  • k-SAE expansion factor = 64
    Hidden dimension is d*64, following prior work [22]. A hyperparameter that affects capacity and feature granularity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pre-trained diffusion models encode semantic visual information in their intermediate activations.
    Assumed throughout; the paper does not prove this but cites prior work using diffusion features for discriminative tasks (Section 1).
  • domain assumption k-sparse autoencoders trained on diffusion activations recover meaningful monosemantic features.
    The core method of the paper, borrowed from LLM interpretability (Section 3.2). No proof that the recovered components correspond to human-interpretable concepts.
  • domain assumption Class labels of target datasets are a valid proxy for semantic content when measuring neuron purity.
    Implicit in the σ_label metric (Section 4.2). Treats label agreement as evidence of monosemanticity, which is reasonable for classification-oriented semantics but not justified for all visual concepts.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o multiple-choice judgments on pattern granularity are reliable enough for evaluation.
    Used in Section 4.3 (Table 1) to quantify granularity; authors admit predictions are noisy and sensitive to prompt, so they rely primarily on σ_label.
  • domain assumption PCA visualizations of diffusion features reflect spatial inductive biases of the architecture.
    Used in Section 4.5 and Figures 10-12 to argue U-Net features are localized while DiT features are global. PCA components are not guaranteed to align with human-interpretable spatial structure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\textit{Revelio}$: Interpreting and leveraging semantic information in diffusion models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7KEYSKB

@misc{pith2026241116725,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\textitRevelio$: Interpreting and leveraging semantic information in diffusion models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7KEYSKB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16725}
}
abstract

We study $\textit{how}$ rich visual semantic information is represented within various layers and denoising timesteps of different diffusion architectures. We uncover monosemantic interpretable features by leveraging k-sparse autoencoders (k-SAE). We substantiate our mechanistic interpretations via transfer learning using light-weight classifiers on off-the-shelf diffusion models' features. On $4$ datasets, we demonstrate the effectiveness of diffusion features for representation learning. We provide an in-depth analysis of how different diffusion architectures, pre-training datasets, and language model conditioning impacts visual representation granularity, inductive biases, and transfer learning capabilities. Our work is a critical step towards deepening interpretability of black-box diffusion models. Code and visualizations available at: https://github.com/revelio-diffusion/revelio

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16725 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. k-sparse autoencoders (k-SAE) trained on complex visual features help identify monosemantic visual properties represented within black-box diffusion models. We show sample k-SAE neurons and top-4 images that yield highest activations when the k-SAE is trained on inter￾mediate diffusion layer’s features on Oxford-IIIT Pet [44] dataset. Note how these features encapsulate distinct fine-grained information about dif￾fe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. k-SAE visualizations across layers of the U-Net in SD 1.5 and sample images from different neurons yielding highest activations when k-SAEs are trained on different layers for t = 25 on Oxford-IIIT Pet. We note that across 3 random neurons of k-SAEs, the bottleneck layer captures very coarse-grained information, where foreground objects positioned similarly are activated by the same neuron. up ft1 captures valuable … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. k-SAE visualizations on Caltech-101 of bottleneck and up ft1 UNet layers at t = 25. Unlike for fine-grained dataset ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: k-SAE visualizations on Oxford-IIIT Pet of bottleneck, up ft1, and up ft2 U-Net layers at t = 25. bottleneck isolates very coarse patterns of objects positioned similarly with respect to the background. For up ft1, clear class-specific features are observed help￾ing us…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top-1 accuracy of different SD 1.5 layer features. Features from up ft1 consistently yield best performance for SD 1.5. Layer 1. fine-grained 2. Moderately granular 3. Very coarse 4. No patterns bottleneck 25 52 22 1 up ft0 33 46 20 1 up ft1 47 41 11 1 up ft2 28 50 20 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: k-SAE visualizations of up ft1 of SD 2.1 on Oxford-IIIT Pet at t = 25. Contrary to SD 1.5 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stable Diffusion vs DeepFloyd-IF: The performance dip at up ft0 is not observed for DeepFloyd-IF across both datasets. underlying text encoder and pre-trained datasets. We first extract diffusion features from bottleneck and up ft1 at t = {25, 200} on Oxford-IIIT Pet d…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualizing top-3 PCA components of diffusion features from SD 1.5 and DiT. bottleneck, up ft0, and up ft1 of SD 1.5 capture spatially localized information at varied granularity. This property is missing from DiT features across different blocks. ing larger shifts in…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: k-SAE visualizations of DiT blocks on Oxford-IIIT Pet. Block 14 captures fine-grained information; others capture less distinct features. Latent v/s pixel space: We next examine how diffusion denoising in the pixel space impacts the learnt visual infor￾mation different…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: PCA Feature Maps SD-1.5 on images from UnRel [47] - Consistency of colors and textures (at up ft1, up ft2) suggests that the model preserves local details and spatial relationships [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: PCA Feature Maps DiT on images from UnRel [47] - The blending of colors suggests that the model encodes global relationships while maintaining a holistic representation of spatial structures, rather than isolating precise local details. Table 2b. We hypothesize that a…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: k-SAE visualizations of the blocks on Oxford-IIIT Pet at t = 25. Block 14 mainly captures class-specific information, while other blocks focus more on less distinct features. Pets up1, t=25, SD21 (a) Texture (d) Low-light up_ft1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: k-SAE visualizations on Oxford-IIIT Pet of up ft1 UNet layer at t = 500. In contrast to the earlier timestep ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AudioSAE: Towards Understanding of Audio-Processing Models with Sparse AutoEncoders

    cs.SD 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SAE features from Whisper and HuBERT are seed-stable, interpretable, and steerable: cutting false speech detections by 70% and correlating with EEG responses to speech.

  2. FoldSAE: Learning to Steer Protein Folding Through Sparse Representations

    q-bio.QM 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Sparse-autoencoder features inside RFdiffusion predict—and, when amplified or suppressed, causally steer—helix and strand content in generated protein backbones.

  3. SAeUron: Interpretable Concept Unlearning in Diffusion Models with Sparse Autoencoders

    cs.LG 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SAeUron removes concepts from text-to-image diffusion models by ablating concept-specific sparse autoencoder features during inference, achieving state-of-the-art unlearning on UnlearnCanvas and I2P without weight updates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [33]

    A. C Li, M. Prabhudesai, S. Duggal, E. Brown, and D. Pathak. Your diffusion model is secretly a zero-shot clas- sifier. In ICCV, 2023. 1, 2, 6, 8

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    https://www.midjourney.com/home

    Midjourney. https://www.midjourney.com/home. 3

    work page

  3. [2]

    Introducing gen-3 alpha. 2024. https://runwayml. com/blog/introducing-gen-3-alpha/ . 3

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    gpt 4o. 2024. https://openai.com/index/hello- gpt-4o/. 4, 16

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Achiam, S

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. 4

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    C. Anil, E. Durmus, M. Sharma, J. Benton, S. Kundu, J. Bat- son, N. Rimsky, M. Tong, J. Mu, D. Ford, et al. Many-shot jailbreaking. In NeurIPS, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    DeepFloyd IF: a novel state- of-the-art open-source text-to-image model with a high de- gree of photorealism and language understanding

    DeepFloyd Lab at StabilityAI. DeepFloyd IF: a novel state- of-the-art open-source text-to-image model with a high de- gree of photorealism and language understanding. https: //www.deepfloyd.ai/deepfloyd- if , 2023. Re- trieved on 2023-11-08. 7

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Y . Ban, R. Wang, T. Zhou, M. Cheng, B. Gong, and C. J. Hsieh. Understanding the impact of negative prompts: When and how do they take effect? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02965, 2024. 1

    arXiv 2024

Show all 77 references
  1. [8]

    F. Bao, S. Nie, K. Xue, Y . Cao, C. Li, H. Su, and J. Zhu. All are worth words: A vit backbone for diffusion models. In CVPR, 2023. 2

    2023

  2. [9]

    Baranchuk, I

    D. Baranchuk, I. Rubachev, A. V oynov, V . Khrulkov, and A. Babenko. Label-efficient semantic segmentation with diffu- sion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03126, 2021. 1, 2, 6

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    S. Basu, K. Rezaei, P. Kattakinda, V . Morariu, N. Zhao, R. Rossi, V . Manjunatha, and S. Feizi. On mechanistic knowl- edge localization in text-to-image generative models. ICML,

  4. [11]

    Bricken, A

    T. Bricken, A. Templeton, J. Batson, B. Chen, A. Jermyn, T. Conerly, N. Turner, C. Anil, C. Denison, A. Askell, R. Lasenby, Y . Wu, S. Kravec, N. Schiefer, T. Maxwell, N. Joseph, Z. Hatfield-Dodds, A. Tamkin, K. Nguyen, B. McLean, J. E Burke, T. Hume, S. Carter, T. Henighan, a...

    2023

  5. [12]

    Chefer, O

    H. Chefer, O. Lang, M. Geva, V . Polosukhin, A. Shocher, M. Irani, I. Mosseri, and L. Wolf. The hidden language of diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00966, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    S. Chen, P. Sun, Y . Song, and P. Luo. Diffusiondet: Diffusion model for object detection. In ICCV, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  7. [14]

    Cherti, R

    M. Cherti, R. Beaumont, R. Wightman, M. Wortsman, G. Il- harco, C. Gordon, C. Schuhmann, L. Schmidt, and J. Jitsev. Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learning. In CVPR, 2023. 8

    2023

  8. [15]

    Clark and P

    K. Clark and P. Jaini. Text-to-image diffusion models are zero shot classifiers. In NeurIPS, 2024. 2

    2024

  9. [16]

    Cunningham, A

    H. Cunningham, A. Ewart, L. Riggs, R. Huben, and L. Sharkey. Sparse autoencoders find highly interpretable fea- tures in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08600,

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    Daujotas

    G. Daujotas. Interpreting and steering features in im- ages. 2024. https : / / www . lesswrong . com / posts / Quqekpvx8BGMMcaem / interpreting - and-steering-features-in-images . 2

    2024

  11. [18]

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L. J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei- Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In CVPR, 2009. 5

    2009

  12. [19]

    Dewan, R

    S. Dewan, R. Zawar, P. Saxena, Y . Chang, A. Luo, and Y . Bisk. Diffusion pid: Interpreting diffusion via partial infor- mation decomposition. NeurIPS, 2024. 2

    2024

  13. [20]

    Dhariwal and A

    P. Dhariwal and A. Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. In NeurIPS, 2021. 2

    2021

  14. [21]

    Fei-Fei, R

    L. Fei-Fei, R. Fergus, and P. Perona. One-shot learning of object categories. In IEEE TPAMI, 2006. 4

    2006

  15. [22]

    H. Fry. Towards multimodal interpretability: Learn- ing sparse interpretable features in vision transformers

  16. [23]

    Gao, Tom D

    L. Gao, Tom D. la T., H. Tillman, G. Goh, R. Troll, A. Rad- ford, I. Sutskever, J. Leike, and J. Wu. Scaling and evaluat- ing sparse autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04093,

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    Girdhar, M

    R. Girdhar, M. Singh, A. Brown, Q. Duval, S. Azadi, S. S. Rambhatla, A. Shah, X. Yin, D. Parikh, and I. Misra. Emu video: Factorizing text-to-video generation by explicit image conditioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10709, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Guo and D

    Q. Guo and D. Yue. Dit-visualization. https://github. com/guoqincode/DiT-Visualization , 2024. Ex- ploring the differences between DiT-based and Unet-based diffusion models in feature aspects using code from dif- fusers, Plug-and-Play, and PixArt. 2

    2024

  19. [26]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In CVPR, 2016. 8

    2016

  20. [27]

    X. He, W. Feng, T. J. Fu, V . Jampani, A. Akula, P. Narayana, S. Basu, W. Y . Wang, and X. E. Wang. Discffusion: Dis- criminative diffusion models as few-shot vision and language learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10722, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel. Denoising diffusion proba- bilistic models. In NeurIPS, 2020. 2, 4

    2020

  22. [29]

    Jahanian, X

    A. Jahanian, X. Puig, Y . Tian, and P. Isola. Generative mod- els as a data source for multiview representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05258, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  23. [30]

    P Kingma

    D. P Kingma. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013. 3

    2013 arXiv

  24. [31]

    P Kingma

    D. P Kingma. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. 15

    2014 arXiv

  25. [32]

    M. Kwon, J. Jeong, and Y . Uh. Diffusion models al- ready have a semantic latent space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10960, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    H. Liu, C. Li, Q. Wu, and Y . J. Lee. Visual instruction tuning. In NeurIPS, 2024. 4, 8, 12

    2024

  27. [35]

    Loshchilov

    I. Loshchilov. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017. 4, 15

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    G. Luo, L. Dunlap, D. H. Park, A. Holynski, and T. Darrell. Diffusion hyperfeatures: Searching through time and space for semantic correspondence. In NeurIPS, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  29. [37]

    Mahajan, T

    S. Mahajan, T. Rahman, K. M. Yi, and L. Sigal. Prompt- ing hard or hardly prompting: Prompt inversion for text-to- image diffusion models. In CVPR, 2024. 2

    2024

  30. [38]

    S. Maji, E. Rahtu, J. Kannala, M. Blaschko, and A. Vedaldi. Fine-grained visual classification of aircraft. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.5151, 2013. 4, 5, 12

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Makhzani and B

    A. Makhzani and B. Frey. K-sparse autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5663, 2013. 2, 3

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ng et al

    A. Ng et al. Sparse autoencoder. CS294A Lecture notes, 72 (2011):1–19, 2011. 3

    2011

  33. [41]

    Interpreting gpt: The logit lens

    Nostalgebraist. Interpreting gpt: The logit lens

  34. [42]

    A Olshausen and D

    B. A Olshausen and D. J Field. Sparse coding with an over- complete basis set: A strategy employed by v1? Vision re- search, 1997. 2

    1997

  35. [43]

    lesswrong

    https : / / www . lesswrong . com / posts / AcKRB8wDpdaN6v6ru/interpreting- gpt- the- logit-lens. 5

  36. [44]

    O. M. Parkhi, A. Vedaldi, A. Zisserman, and C. V . Jawahar. Cats and dogs. In CVPR, 2012. 1, 4, 12

    2012

  37. [45]

    Oquab, T

    M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. V o, M. Szafraniec, V . Khalidov, P. Fernandez, D. Haziza, F. Massa, A. El- Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features with- out supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 4, 8, 12

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Peebles and S

    W. Peebles and S. Xie. Scalable diffusion models with trans- formers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09748 , 2022. 2, 3, 4, 7

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Patashnik, D

    O. Patashnik, D. Garibi, I. Azuri, H. Averbuch-Elor, and D. Cohen-Or. Localizing object-level shape variations with text- to-image diffusion models. In ICCV, 2023. 2

    2023

  40. [48]

    Podell, Z

    D. Podell, Z. English, K. Lacey, A. Blattmann, T. Dockhorn, J. M¨uller, J. Penna, and R. Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Peyre, I

    J. Peyre, I. Laptev, C. Schmid, and J. Sivic. Weakly- supervised learning of visual relations. In ICCV, 2017. 7, 14

    2017

  42. [50]

    Ramesh, P

    A. Ramesh, P. Dhariwal, A. Nichol, C. Chu, and M. Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip la- tents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In ICML, 2021. 8, 12

    2021

  44. [52]

    Ronneberger, P

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox. U-net: Convolu- tional networks for biomedical image segmentation. InMIC- CAI, 2015. 4

    2015

  45. [53]

    Rombach, A

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Om- mer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In CVPR, 2022. 2, 3, 4

    2022

  46. [54]

    Sharkey, D

    L. Sharkey, D. Braun, and B. Millidge. Taking features out of superposition with sparse autoencoders, 2022. AI Align- ment Forum, 2023. https://www.alignmentforum. org / posts / z6QQJbtpkEAX3Aojj / interim - research-report-taking-features-out-of- superposition. 15

    2022

  47. [55]

    Saharia, W

    C. Saharia, W. Chan, S. Saxena, L. Li, J. Whang, E. L Den- ton, K. Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo L., B. Karagol Ayan, T. Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. In NeurIPS,

  48. [56]

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon. Denoising diffusion im- plicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 4

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Sharma, N

    P. Sharma, N. Ding, S. Goodman, and R. Soricut. Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, image alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning. In ACL, 2018. 4, 12

    2018

  50. [58]

    Introducing mpt-7b: A new standard for open-source, commercially usable llms

    MosaicML NLP Team. Introducing mpt-7b: A new standard for open-source, commercially usable llms. 2023. www. mosaicml.com/blog/mpt-7b. 4, 12

    2023

  51. [59]

    Surkov, C

    V . Surkov, C. Wendler, M. Terekhov, J. Deschenaux, R. West, and C. Gulcehre. Unpacking sdxl turbo: Interpret- ing text-to-image models with sparse autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22366, 2024. 2

    2024

  52. [60]

    Tibshirani

    R. Tibshirani. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Sta- tistical Methodology, 58(1):267–288, 1996. 3

    1996

  53. [61]

    Templeton, T

    A. Templeton, T. Conerly, J. Marcus, J. Lindsey, T. Bricken, B. Chen, A. Pearce, C. Citro, E. Ameisen, A. Jones, H. Cunningham, N. L Turner, C. McDougall, M. MacDiarmid, C. D. Freeman, T. R. Sumers, E. Rees, J. Batson, A. Jermyn, S. Carter, C. Olah, and T. Henighan. Scaling mo...

    2024

  54. [62]

    S. Tong, Z. Liu, Y . Zhai, Y . Ma, Y . LeCun, and S. Xie. Eyes wide shut? exploring the visual shortcomings of multimodal llms. In CVPR, 2024. 4, 8, 12

    2024

  55. [63]

    Toker, H

    M. Toker, H. Orgad, M. Ventura, D. Arad, and Y . Belinkov. Diffusion lens: Interpreting text encoders in text-to-image pipelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05846, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    V oynov, Q

    A. V oynov, Q. Chu, D. Cohen-Or, and K. Aberman. p+: Extended textual conditioning in text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09522, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Tumanyan, M

    N. Tumanyan, M. Geyer, S. Bagon, and T. Dekel. Plug-and- play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image trans- lation. In CVPR, 2023. 1, 2, 7

    2023

  58. [66]

    W. Wu, Y . Zhao, H. Chen, Y . Gu, R. Zhao, Y . He, H. Zhou, M. Z. Shou, and C. Shen. Datasetdm: Synthesizing data with perception annotations using diffusion models. In NeurIPS,

  59. [67]

    W. Wang, Q. Sun, F. Zhang, Y . Tang, J. Liu, and X. Wang. Diffusion feedback helps clip see better. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20171, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Yang and X

    X. Yang and X. Wang. Diffusion model as representation learner. In ICCV, 2023. 2

    2023

  61. [69]

    J. Xu, S. Liu, A. Vahdat, W. Byeon, X. Wang, and S. De Mello. Open-vocabulary panoptic segmentation with text-to-image diffusion models. In CVPR, 2023. 1, 2, 12

    2023

  62. [70]

    W. Yu, Z. Yang, L. Li, J. Wang, K. Lin, Z. Liu, X. Wang, and L. Wang. Mm-vet: Evaluating large multimodal models for integrated capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02490,

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    J. Ye, N. Wang, and X. Wang. Featurenerf: Learning gen- eralizable nerfs by distilling foundation models. In ICCV,

  64. [73]

    a photo of a {class name}, a type of pet

    W. Zhao, Y . Rao, Z. Liu, B. Liu, J. Zhou, and J. Lu. Unleash- ing text-to-image diffusion models for visual perception. In ICCV, 2023. 1 Revelio: Interpreting and leveraging semantic information in diffusion models Supplementary Material A. Text Conditioning in Diffusion Mode...

    2023

  65. [74]

    Class-specific information (e.g., fine- grained details, animals of the same breed)

  66. [75]

    Moderately granular features (e.g., similar-looking animals irrespective of their position)

  67. [76]

    Very coarse information (e.g., foreground objects similarly placed relative to the background)

  68. [77]

    Select only one number (1, 2, 3, or 4) that best describes the shared pattern **Respond with just the number and nothing else.** Table 14

    Could not detect patterns (e.g., noisy or no specific patterns). Select only one number (1, 2, 3, or 4) that best describes the shared pattern **Respond with just the number and nothing else.** Table 14. Input prompt for GPT-4o based evaluation

  69. [2024]

    lesswrong

    https : / / www . lesswrong . com / posts / bCtbuWraqYTDtuARg / towards - multimodal - interpretability-learning-sparse. 2, 15

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.