Missing modalities present a fundamental challenge in multimodal models, often causing catastrophic performance degradation. Our observations suggest that this fragility stems from an imbalanced learning process, where the model develops an implicit preference for certain modalities, leading to the under-optimization of others. We propose a simple yet efficient method to address this challenge. The central insight of our work is that the dominance relationship between modalities can be effectively discerned and quantified in the frequency domain. To leverage this principle, we first introduce a Frequency Ratio Metric (FRM) to quantify modality preference by analyzing features in the frequency domain. Guided by FRM, we then propose a Multimodal Weight Allocation Module, a plug-and-play component that dynamically re-balances the contribution of each branch during training, promoting a more holistic learning paradigm. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MWAM can be seamlessly integrated into diverse architectural backbones, such as those based on CNNs and ViTs. Furthermore, MWAM delivers consistent performance gains across a wide range of tasks and modality combinations. This advancement extends beyond merely optimizing the performance of the base model; it also manifests as further performance improvements to state-of-the-art methods addressing the missing modality problem.
Figures & tables
Modal
Multi-modal
Uni-modal
RFNet
FRM (↑)
Rgb
Depth
Ir
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
✗
80.10 (-10.96)
18.37 (+11.17)
91.06
7.20
87.57
11.38
1.81 × 10 8
✗
✓
✗
95.21 (-2.08)
2.97 (+2.12)
97.29
0.85
95.83
3.03
2.33 × 10 10
✗
✗
✓
90.94 (-1.52)
7.32 (+1.55)
92.46
5.77
85.31
13.67
1.02 × 10 9
✓
✓
✗
96.20 (-0.83)
1.96 (+0.85)
97.03
1.11
97.77
1.06
2.34 × 10 10
✓
✗
✓
92.24 (-2.44)
5.99 (+2.48)
94.68
3.51
95.73
3.13
1.20 × 10 9
Table 1: Analysis of model performance under various incomplete modality conditions on the CASIA-SURF dataset. Performance is quantified using Accuracy (Acc) and Performance Collapse Rate (PCR). Multi-modal refers to models trained on complete data but evaluated with missing modalities during inference. Uni-modal indicates models trained and evaluated using only a single modality. FRM is the Frequency Ratio Metric detailed in Section 4.2 .
Figure 1: Impact of different frequency components on multimodal model performance. (a): Training loss curves. (b): Validation loss curves. (c): Validation accuracy curves. The numbers in the legend represent the window sizes of the filters, and ” Raw dataset ” denotes the original dataset without any filtering applied. More experimental details can be found in Appendix A.5 .
Figure 2: Architecture and application of our proposed MWAM. (a): Main structure of the MWAM. (b): FRM bank, designed to handle modality exceptions. Its update mechanism is governed by Eq. 2 . (c): An illustration of the integration of MWAM into a multimodal host model. The calculation rules of FRM follow Eq. 4 , which requires flipping and aligning the high-frequency components.
Figure 3: Schematic of training intervention mechanisms. (a) is parameter-free, and (b) need extra lightweight auxiliary heads.
Modal
RFNet
RFNet †
mmFormer
mmFormer †
GSS
GSS †
F
T1
T1c
T2
Dice(↑)
PCR(↓)
Dice
PCR
Dice
PCR
Dice
PCR
Dice
PCR
Dice
PCR
✗
✗
✗
✓
85.07
5.62
85.93
5.32
84.71
5.91
85.80
4.96
85.78
5.64
86.57
5.23
✗
✗
✓
✗
74.95
16.85
76.39
15.83
74.92
16.78
76.00
15.82
75.96
16.44
79.08
13.43
✗
✓
✗
✗
71.98
20.15
74.12
18.33
74.56
17.18
75.93
15.89
75.38
17.08
79.03
13.49
✓
✗
✗
✗
85.16
5.52
86.49
4.70
85.87
4.62
86.75
3.91
85.99
5.41
87.34
4.39
✗
✗
✓
✓
86.91
3.58
87.86
3.20
86.80
3.59
87.54
3.04
87.39
3.87
88.40
3.23
Table 2: Performance comparison of multimodal robust solutions on BRATS2020 dataset. † denotes the integration of our proposed MWAM with the corresponding base model. Bold and italics indicate the best value and the second best value for each row in turn. Due to space constraints, we present only a subset of the comparison results here. More results are provided in Table 15 , which includes several advanced methods, including HeMIS ( ) , Robust Seg, M3AE, LS3M, and A2FSeg.
Modal
ESANet-MD
MMANet
ESANet-MD †
MMANet †
Rgb
Depth
MIoU(↑)
PCR(↓)
MIoU
PCR
MIoU
PCR
MIoU
PCR
✓
✗
41.30
13.07
42.24
12.47
44.27
9.28
45.88
8.77
✗
✓
38.79
18.35
39.93
17.26
40.34
17.34
41.64
16.55
✓
✓
47.51
/
48.26
/
48.80
/
49.90
/
Average
42.53
15.71
43.47
14.87
44.47
13.31
45.81
12.66
Table 3: Performance comparison of multimodal robust solutions on NYU-Depth V2 dataset
Modal
SF-MD
MMFormer
CRMT-JT
MMANet
SF-MD †
MMANet †
Rgb
Depth
Ir
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
✗
83.92
13.83
88.85
9.39
90.13
8.66
91.43
7.77
92.13
6.87
93.49
5.32
✗
✓
✗
93.65
3.84
95.33
2.78
96.26
2.45
97.73
1.41
96.55
2.41
98.31
0.44
✗
✗
✓
89.60
8.00
86.01
12.29
89.75
9.05
89.96
9.25
93.76
5.23
94.18
4.62
✓
✓
✗
95.43
2.01
98.07
-0.01
95.68
3.04
98.39
0.75
98.25
0.69
98.64
0.10
✓
✗
✓
93.26
4.24
95.23
2.89
91.81
6.96
96.99
2.16
96.62
2.33
96.60
2.17
Table 4: Performance comparison of multimodal robust solutions on SURF dataset. Due to space constraints, we present only a subset of the comparison results here. Comprehensive results are provided in Appendix A.14 .
Figure 4: Training losses for different interventions
Modal
w/o MWAM
Loss
Gradient
Hybrid Loss+Grad
Rgb
Depth
Ir
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
✗
83.92
13.83
89.42
9.37
89.36
9.67
92.13
6.87
✗
✓
✗
93.65
3.84
95.12
3.60
95.27
3.70
96.55
2.41
✗
✗
✓
89.60
8.00
91.25
7.52
94.26
4.72
93.76
5.23
✓
✓
✗
95.43
2.01
97.18
1.51
97.06
1.89
98.25
0.69
✓
✗
✓
93.26
4.24
95.72
2.99
96.61
2.35
96.62
2.33
Table 5: Impact of constraints at different levels on model performance metrics. We use SF-MD as the baseline framework and conduct experiments on the SURF dataset.
Appendix figures & tables23 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Comparison of visualization of filter effects. In the horizontal axis, it can be divided into five parts, which are the spatial and frequency domain images of the input image, two high-pass filter results with different window sizes, and two low-pass filter results with different window sizes.
Tasks
Classification
Semantic Segmentation
Brain Tumor Segmentation
Models
MMANet
MMANet +MWAM
ESANet-MD
ESANet-MD +MWAM
RFNet
RFNet +MWAM
Params. (M)
13.18
13.18 (+0)
71.69
71.69 (+0)
8.4
8.4 (+0)
Flops (G)
60.63
60.6752 (+0.0452)
526.60
526.6627 (+0.0627)
204.56
204.5604 (+0.0004)
Inference time
0.0385±0.005
0.0878±0.0040
0.0542±0.0139
Appendix
Table 6: Computational cost analysis of MWAM. The Parameters and FLOPs statistics are reported for the entire model (with and without MWAM), while the Inference Time is measured for the MWAM module in isolation.
Modal
w/o MWAM
q =1
q =2
q =4
q =6
Rgb
Depth
Ir
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
✗
91.43
7.77
93.07
5.92
93.49
5.32
92.43
6.54
89.93
9.22
✗
✓
✗
97.73
1.41
98.62
0.31
98.31
0.44
98.61
0.29
98.51
0.56
✗
✗
✓
89.96
9.25
90.62
8.40
94.18
4.62
91.90
7.08
91.18
7.95
✓
✓
✗
98.39
0.75
98.86
0.07
98.64
0.10
98.68
0.22
98.00
1.07
✓
✗
✓
96.99
2.16
96.52
2.44
96.60
2.17
96.19
2.74
95.71
3.38
Appendix
Table 7: Impact of frequency selection window size on model performance. We embed MWAM into MMANet and vary the sampling window size q . In the table, ”w/o MWAM” is vanilla MMANet.
Modal
w/o MWAM
w/o High-Freq.
w/ High-Freq.
Direct Sum
Weighted Sum
Rgb
Depth
Ir
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
✗
91.43
7.77
90.79
7.54
93.49
5.32
92.28
6.53
91.97
7.29
✗
✓
✗
97.73
1.41
98.38
-0.19
98.31
0.44
97.36
1.39
98.30
0.91
✗
✗
✓
89.96
9.25
88.73
9.63
94.18
4.62
90.67
8.16
90.68
8.59
✓
✓
✗
98.39
0.75
98.21
-0.02
98.64
0.10
98.58
0.15
98.87
0.33
✓
✗
✓
96.99
2.16
92.28
6.02
96.60
2.17
95.18
3.60
95.80
3.43
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison of the impact of FRM calculation rules on model performance. In the table, ”w/o MWAM” is vanilla MMANet, ”w/o High-Freq.” is in the form of an L1 -Norm sum using the low-frequency components, as in Eq. 3 , ”w/ High-Freq.” is using our FRM as in Eq. 4 , ”Direct Sum” is a directly summed L1 -Norm of the low-frequency and high-frequency components, as shown in Eq. 27 , and ”Weighted Sum” is the L1-Norm weighted sum of the low-frequency and high-frequency components, as shown in Eq. 28 . All experiments were conducted in the same environment.
Parameter Combination ( α / β / γ / λ )
Average Accuracy (Acc)
Performance Collapse Rate (PCR)
1.2 / 1.0 / 0.7 / 6.0
96.48
3.34
1.8 / 1.0 / 0.7 / 6.0
96.42
3.09
1.5 / 1.3 / 0.7 / 6.0
96.04
3.45
1.5 / 0.7 / 0.7 / 6.0
96.53
2.32
1.5 / 1.0 / 1.0 / 6.0
96.73
2.57
1.5 / 1.0 / 0.4 / 6.0
96.37
3.30
Appendix
Table 9: Parameter sensitivity analysis for the weight allocation function.
Modal
bs=64 w/o MWAM
bs=64 w/ MWAM
bs=16 w/o MWAM
bs=16 w/ MWAM
Rgb
Depth
Ir
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
✗
91.43
7.77
93.49
5.32
87.89
11.32
90.57
8.17
✗
✓
✗
97.73
1.41
98.31
0.44
97.83
1.29
97.36
1.29
✗
✗
✓
89.96
9.25
94.18
4.62
89.16
10.04
94.03
4.66
✓
✓
✗
98.39
0.75
98.64
0.10
97.01
2.12
98.34
0.29
✓
✗
✓
96.99
2.16
96.60
2.17
96.21
2.93
95.79
2.88
Appendix
Table 10: Training models with different batch sizes. Bold indicates the best metric under the same batch size.
Modal
Baseline
MWAM
OGM-GE
LFM
Vidio
O.F.
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
74.41
7.81
72.36
11.36
73.47
8.44
73.76
9.45
✗
✓
55.68
31.01
60.45
25.95
53.86
32.88
57.27
29.70
✓
✓
80.71
/
81.63
/
80.24
/
81.46
/
Average
70.27
19.41
71.48
18.65
69.19
20.66
70.83
19.57
Appendix
Table 11: Performance comparison of video-optical flow multimodal classification tasks.
Modal
T-yolov8n
T-yolov8n+MWAM
RGB
IR
mAP50(↑)
PCR(↓)
mAP50
PCR
✓
✗
0.215
72.78
0.628
21.89
✗
✓
0.669
15.32
0.738
8.21
✓
✓
0.790
/
0.804
/
Average
0.558
44.05
0.723
15.05
Appendix
Table 12: Performance comparison of MWAM in the multi-modal detection task.
Figure 6: Qualitative results for object detection.
Figure 7: Comparative analysis of PR curves.
Modal
OGM-GE
LFM
AGM
MWAM
Rgb
Depth
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
79.87
17.43
69.29
29.67
88.81
9.86
93.99
4.96
✗
✓
87.49
9.55
98.81
-0.29
94.42
4.16
97.68
1.22
✓
✓
96.73
/
98.52
/
98.52
/
98.89
/
Average
88.03
13.49
88.78
14.69
93.92
7.01
96.85
3.09
Rgb
Ir
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Appendix
Table 13: Comparison with different balanced multimodal training methods. To adapt to some comparison methods, we trained our MWAM using pairwise combinations of three modalities. All methods used the vanilla ResNet18 structure and concat-based fusion, and were tested on the SURF dataset.
Modal
MS ES
MSLR
MWAM
Rgb
Depth
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
85.86
8.57
70.72
25.96
93.99
4.96
✗
✓
84.95
9.54
79.79
16.47
97.68
1.22
✓
✓
93.91
/
95.52
/
98.89
/
Average
88.24
9.06
82.01
21.22
96.85
3.09
Rgb
Ir
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Appendix
Table 14: Comparison with different balanced multimodal training methods. This table serves as a continuation of Table 13 .
Modal
HeMIS
Robust Seg
M3AE
LS3M
A2FSeg
F
T1
T1c
T2
Dice(↑)
PCR(↓)
Dice
PCR
Dice
PCR
Dice
PCR
Dice
PCR
✗
✗
✗
✓
79.85
6.27
82.20
8.13
85.17
4.99
86.34
6.26
85.36
6.52
✗
✗
✓
✗
64.58
24.19
71.39
20.21
77.65
13.38
79.36
13.84
77.86
14.73
✗
✓
✗
✗
63.01
26.04
71.41
20.19
74.88
16.47
79.35
13.85
75.86
16.92
✓
✗
✗
✗
52.29
38.62
82.87
7.38
85.86
4.22
88.14
4.30
86.46
5.31
✗
✗
✓
✓
84.45
0.87
85.97
3.91
86.51
3.49
88.01
4.45
87.74
3.91
Appendix
Table 15: Performance comparison of multimodal robust solutions on BRATS2020 dataset. This table serves as a continuation of Table 2 .
Modal
SF-MD
HeMIS
RFNet
MMANet
SF-MD †
MMANet †
Rgb
Depth
Ir
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
✗
83.92
13.83
85.64
12.64
87.57
11.38
91.43
7.77
92.13
6.87
93.49
5.32
✗
✓
✗
93.65
3.84
95.30
2.78
95.83
3.03
97.73
1.41
96.55
2.41
98.31
0.44
✗
✗
✓
89.60
8.00
83.79
14.53
85.31
13.67
89.96
9.25
93.76
5.23
94.18
4.62
✓
✓
✗
95.43
2.01
96.77
1.29
97.77
1.06
98.39
0.75
98.25
0.69
98.64
0.10
✓
✗
✓
93.26
4.24
93.73
4.39
95.73
3.13
96.99
2.16
96.62
2.33
96.60
2.17
Appendix
Table 16: Performance comparison of multimodal robust solutions on SURF dataset. This table serves as a continuation of Table 4 .
modal
CRMT-JT
CO M
DCP
MWAM
Rgb
Depth
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
93.08
5.42
92.79
5.28
93.01
5.74
93.99
4.96
✗
✓
96.74
1.70
96.82
1.16
98.15
0.53
97.68
1.22
✓
✓
98.41
/
97.96
/
98.67
/
98.89
/
Average
96.08
3.56
95.86
3.22
96.61
3.13
96.85
3.09
Appendix
Table 17: Comparison with other methods for handling missing modalities. To ensure a fair comparison, we only report results on the SURF dataset using the two most dissimilar modalities: RGB and Depth.
Figure 8: Visualization of filtering effects on dataset samples. This figure showcases the comparative results of applying low-pass and high-pass filters with various kernel sizes to paired visible-light and depth images.
Modal
w/o filter
3 × 3
5 × 5
7 × 7
9 × 9
RGB
Depth
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
61.60
9.57
66.95
6.53
67.22
7.03
62.77
11.03
56.73
15.98
✗
✓
39.81
41.56
39.54
44.80
40.02
44.65
39.78
43.61
38.58
42.86
✓
✓
68.12
/
71.63
/
72.30
/
70.55
/
67.52
/
Average
56.51
25.57
59.37
25.67
59.85
25.84
57.70
27.32
54.28
29.42
Appendix
Table 18: Performance comparison of low-pass filters with varying small kernel sizes.
Modal
w/o filter
17 × 17
31 × 31
51 × 51
RGB
Depth
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
61.60
9.57
31.70
28.76
18.33
19.11
14.75
4.10
✗
✓
39.81
41.56
31.55
29.10
21.72
4.15
16.92
-10.01
✓
✓
68.12
/
44.50
/
22.66
/
15.38
/
Average
56.51
25.57
35.92
28.93
20.90
11.63
15.68
-2.96
Appendix
Table 19: Performance comparison of low-pass filters with varying large kernel sizes.
Modal
w/o filter
3 × 3
5 × 5
7 × 7
9 × 9
RGB
Depth
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
61.60
9.57
56.49
12.35
54.51
13.32
52.22
14.10
50.21
14.57
✗
✓
39.81
41.56
39.69
38.42
39.66
36.94
39.60
34.86
39.42
32.92
✓
✓
68.12
/
64.45
/
62.89
/
60.79
/
58.77
/
Average
56.51
25.57
53.54
25.38
52.35
25.13
50.87
24.48
49.47
23.75
Appendix
Table 20: Performance comparison of high-pass filters with varying small kernel sizes.
Modal
w/o filter
17 × 17
31 × 31
51 × 51
RGB
Depth
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
61.60
9.57
46.51
16.11
44.62
13.76
43.75
9.40
✗
✓
39.81
41.56
37.98
31.49
33.23
35.78
29.48
38.95
✓
✓
68.12
/
55.44
/
51.74
/
48.29
/
Average
56.51
25.57
46.64
23.80
43.20
24.77
40.51
24.18
Appendix
Table 21: Performance comparison of high-pass filters with varying large kernel sizes.
Figure 9: Effect of filter type and kernel size on model performance.
Modal
Stanford Dogs Dataset
FGVC-Aircraft Dataset
w/o MWAM
w/ MWAM
w/o MWAM
w/ MWAM
Rgb
Depth
Acc(↑)
PCR(↓)
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
Acc
PCR
✓
✗
32.91
38.73
43.91
28.84
61.60
9.57
74.85
6.21
✗
✓
27.90
48.05
36.20
41.34
39.81
41.56
56.22
29.56
✓
✓
53.71
/
61.71
/
68.12
/
79.81
/
Average
38.17
43.39
47.27
35.09
56.51
25.57
70.29
17.89
Appendix
Table 22: Validation of the effectiveness of MWAM on fine-grained classification tasks. We selected the Stanford Dogs dataset and the FGVC Aircraft dataset, and used the DepthAnything v2 model to generate corresponding depth representations. The classification performance before and after deploying our MWAM is tested using the vanilla ResNet18 structure as the base model.
Figure 10: Performance comparison of methods under different filters.
Multimodal learning has attracted increasing attention due to its practicality. However, it often suffers from insufficient optimization, where the multimodal model underperforms even compared to its unimodal counterparts. Existing methods attribute this problem to the imbalanced learning between modalities and solve it by gradient modulation. This paper argues that balanced learning is not the optimal setting for multimodal learning. On the contrary, imbalanced learning driven by the performance-dominant modality that has superior unimodal performance can contribute to better multimodal performance. And the under-optimization problem is caused by insufficient learning of the performance-dominant modality. To this end, we propose the Performance-Dominant Modality Prioritization (PDMP) strategy to assist multimodal learning. Specifically, PDMP firstly mines the performance-dominant modality via the performance ranking of the independently trained unimodal model. Then PDMP introduces asymmetric coefficients to modulate the gradients of each modality, enabling the performance-dominant modality to dominate the optimization. Since PDMP only relies on the unimodal performance ranking, it is independent of the structures and fusion methods of the multimodal model and has great potential for practical scenarios. Finally, extensive experiments on various datasets validate the superiority of PDMP.
Shicai Wei, Chunbo Luo, Qiang Zhu +1
Laboratory of Intelligent Collaborative Computing, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China. · School of Information and Communication Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Sichuan, China. · Peng Cheng Laboratory, Shenzhen, China.
Multimodal sentiment analysis (MSA) integrates heterogeneous text, audio, and visual signals to infer human emotions. While recent approaches leverage cross-modal complementarity, they often struggle to fully utilize weaker modalities. In practice, dominant modalities tend to overshadow non-verbal ones, inducing modality competition and limiting overall contributions. This imbalance degrades fusion performance and robustness under noisy or missing modalities. To address this, we propose a novel model, Enhance-then-Balance Modality Collaboration framework (EBMC). EBMC improves representation quality via semantic disentanglement and cross-modal enhancement, strengthening weaker modalities. To prevent dominant modalities from overwhelming others, an Energy-guided Modality Coordination mechanism achieves implicit gradient rebalancing via a differentiable equilibrium objective. Furthermore, Instance-aware Modality Trust Distillation estimates sample-level reliability to adaptively modulate fusion weights, ensuring robustness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EBMC achieves state-of-the-art or competitive results and maintains strong performance under missing-modality settings.
Kang He, Yuzhe Ding, Xinrong Wang +3
Key Laboratory of Aerospace Information Security and Trusted Computing, Ministry of Education, School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Wuhan University. · Shanghai Innovation Institute
Learning from multiple modalities often suffers from imbalance, where information-rich modalities dominate optimization while weaker or partially missing modalities contribute less. This imbalance becomes severe in realistic settings with imbalanced missing rates (IMR), where each modality is absent with different probabilities, distorting representation learning and gradient dynamics. We revisit this issue from a training-process perspective and propose BALM, a model-agnostic plug-in framework to achieve balanced multimodal learning under IMR. The framework comprises two complementary modules: the Feature Calibration Module (FCM), which recalibrates unimodal features using global context to establish a shared representation basis across heterogeneous missing patterns; the Gradient Rebalancing Module (GRM), which balances learning dynamics across modalities by modulating gradient magnitudes and directions from both distributional and spatial perspectives. BALM can be seamlessly integrated into diverse backbones, including multimodal emotion recognition (MER) models, without altering their architectures. Experimental results across multiple MER benchmarks confirm that BALM consistently enhances robustness and improves performance under diverse missing and imbalance settings. Code available at: https://github.com/np4s/BALM_CVPR2026.git
Phuong-Anh Nguyen, Tien Anh Pham, Duc-Trong Le +1
VNU University of Engineering and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam