mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

One Geometry, Different Outcomes: Readout-Dependent Effects of the Modality Gap in Vision-Language Models

arXiv 2609.36101 ↗First posted 28 Sep 2026cs.CV cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → Prompt learning and adaptation of CLIP also fits: VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Contrastive vision-language models learn shared embedding spaces by aligning matched image-text pairs, yet their representations remain separated by a modality gap. Prior work reports divergent effects of modifying this gap: reducing it can improve zero-shot classification and cross-modal alignment, whereas removing gap-related structure can degrade image-text retrieval. In this paper, we provide a unified geometric explanation for these task-dependent effects. Across CLIP and SigLIP encoders, we find that a single dominant direction captures 94.4-99.9% of the squared norm of the image-text mean separation, revealing that the mean-separation component is approximately rank-one. A decomposition of the similarity score then identifies three task-specific roles. In zero-shot classification, query-side fixed gap-offset subtraction is exactly equivalent to an additive class bias. In standard cross-modal retrieval, projecting out the gap direction and renormalising residuals discards candidate-specific norm information, inducing a multiplicative ranking distortion; a geometry-derived exponent tracks the grid-search optimum (Spearman rho = 0.93) and restores performance in some settings, although the gains transfer unevenly. In mixed-modal retrieval, the gap direction sorts candidates by modality; its removal can improve cross-modal ranking, unlike random or non-gap controls. Residual semantic structure after removal defines the limits of the rank-one account. Together, these results explain why gap modification can improve, degrade, or restore performance across downstream settings. By clarifying when and why gap modification changes model behavior, this account provides a principled basis for selecting gap interventions in similarity-based vision-language systems across evaluated downstream tasks.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt learning and adaptation of CLIP, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models. Builds on 15 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2026.

Builds on

15 of 16 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Post-pre-training for Modality Alignment in Vision-Language Foundation Models17 Apr
  2. 2024Two Effects, One Trigger: On the Modality Gap, Object Bias, and Information Imbalance in Contrastive Vision-Language Models11 Apr

Other references · 13

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  2. 2023Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre-Trainingcited by 3,048
  3. 2022Mind the Gap: Understanding the Modality Gap in Multi-modal Contrastive Representation Learningcited by 553
  4. 2017All-but-the-Top: Simple and Effective Postprocessing for Word Representationscited by 205
  5. 2023Understanding and Constructing Latent Modality Structures in Multi-modal Representation Learningcited by 53
  6. 2024The Double-Ellipsoid Geometry of CLIPcited by 42
  7. 2025Cross the Gap: Exposing the Intra-modal Misalignment in CLIP via Modality Inversioncited by 42
  8. 2023Generalized Logit Adjustment: Calibrating Fine-tuned Models by Removing Label Bias in Foundation Modelscited by 32
  9. 2024It's Not a Modality Gap: Characterizing and Addressing the Contrastive Gapcited by 26
  10. 2024Explaining and Mitigating the Modality Gap in Contrastive Multimodal Learningcited by 25
  11. 2025Closing the Modality Gap for Mixed Modality Searchcited by 11
  12. 2026Is the Modality Gap a Bug or a Feature? A Robustness Perspectivecited by 4
1 more
  1. 2026Reevaluating the Intra-Modal Misalignment Hypothesis in CLIPcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Fill the Gap: Quantifying and Reducing the Modality Gap in Image-Text Representation Learning
  2. 2026The Geometry of Compromise: Unlocking Generative Capabilities via Controllable Modality Alignment
  3. 2026Cross-Modal Redundancy and the Geometry of Vision-Language Embeddings
  4. 2026UOT-Gap: A Variational Principle for the Modality Gap in Vision-Language Models via Unbalanced Optimal Transport
  5. 2025Beyond Cross-Modal Alignment: Measuring and Leveraging Modality Gap in Vision-Language Models
  6. 2026Same Concept, Different Directions: Cross-Modal Feature Heterogeneity in Sparse Autoencoders
  7. 2025Bridging the Modality Gap by Similarity Standardization with Pseudo-Positive Samples
  8. 2026Seeing Is Not Addressing: Auditing Linguistic Access to Frozen Visual Geometry