Multimodal learning has seen remarkable progress, particularly with large-scale pre-training across various modalities. Most current approaches are built on the assumption of a deterministic one-to-one alignment between modalities. However, this oversimplifies real-world multimodal relationships, where their nature is inherently many-to-many. The many-to-many property, or multiplicity, is not a side-effect of noise or annotation error, but an inevitable outcome of intra-modal variability, representational asymmetry, and task-dependent ambiguity in multimodal tasks. We argue that multiplicity is a fundamental bottleneck that affects all stages of the multimodal learning pipeline: from data construction to model training and evaluation benchmarks. By formalizing its causes and consequences, we demonstrate how ignoring multiplicity leads to training uncertainty, unreliable evaluation, and degraded dataset quality. This position paper calls for new research directions on multimodal learning, including multiplicity-aware learning frameworks and dataset construction and evaluation protocols.
Cross-modal alignment (CA) and cross-modal prediction (CP) are the dominant paradigms for multimodal representation learning, yet there is no systematic understanding of when each succeeds and when each fails --- a gap that leaves practitioners, especially in scientific domains with heterogeneous instruments and multiple levels of measurement, unable to diagnose why standard methods underperform the best single modality. We study both objectives under a spiked signal-plus-noise model with structured cross-modal nuisance correlation, the ingredient that breaks the classical recovery guarantees, and derive separation ratios that expose complementary failure modes: alignment whitens each modality and fails when nuisance is strongly correlated across views; prediction encodes whatever is cross-predictable through a one-sided whitening, with recovery governed by source-modality quality. The resulting phase diagram partitions multimodal problems into four regimes --- Both, CA only, CP only, and Neither --- refined by a recovery count that separates partial recovery from complete failure. We present a data-driven procedure to locate real-world datasets in this diagram using a small labeled subsample, identifying the preferred objective and prediction direction before any cross-modal training, and identifying when no objective in the CA/CP family can improve on the stronger modality alone. Experiments on synthetic data, stereo-vision benchmarks, image--caption pairs, and two real scientific domains --- astronomy and single-cell multi-omics --- validate the predictions in the nonlinear regime, including both faces of the Neither regime. Code to reproduce the results is available at https://github.com/IlayMalinyak/mm_align_vs_pred.
Multimodal learning (MML) falls into the optimization dilemma due to the modality imbalance phenomenon, leading to suboptimal overall performance in practice. While many attempts primarily focus on balancing the optimization dynamics across modalities to address this issue, we identify a subtle yet critical flaw: optimization yields asymmetric gains in predictive certainty, with the strong modality more confident than the weak one, driving imbalanced modality contributions. In this paper, our analysis reveals that this flaw stems from unimodal characteristics rather than multimodal learning, and this confidence discrepancy can be corrected by positive cross-modal intervention. Based on this insight, we propose multimodal Max Confidence Regularization (MaxCR) to dynamically intervene in modality semantic confidence. Specifically, the semantic confidence of each modality is tracked using a nonlinear sparsity measure. We then design max suppression and max excitation based on this measure to regularize strong and weak modalities, respectively. They penalize and encourage the top-1 confidence, thereby constraining multimodal prediction. To this end, strong and weak modalities are expected to make calibrated confidence, thereby improving the overall performance. Empirical experiments on widely used datasets reveal the superiority of our method through comparison with various state-of-the-art (SOTA) multimodal learning baselines.
Multimodal learning leverages the integration of diverse data modalities to enhance performance in complex tasks. Yet, it frequently encounters incomplete or redundant modality data in real-world scenarios. This paper presents a fine-grained theoretical analysis of the generalization properties of multimodal metric learning models, addressing critical gaps in understanding the relationship between modality selection and algorithmic performance. We establish hierarchical relationships between function classes corresponding to different modality subsets and quantify the discrepancy between learned mappings and ground truth. Through rigorous analysis of pairwise complexity within the multimodal learning framework, we derive novel generalization error bounds that reveal the joint impact of modality quantity and granularity on model performance. Our theoretical findings on both upper and lower bounds demonstrate that incorporating fine-grained modality features reduces the complexity of the hypothesis space by enhancing modality complementarity. This work offers both theoretical foundations and practical implications for improving convergence rates and accuracy in multimodal learning systems.