Recent multimodal systems often rely on separate expert modality encoders which cause linearly scaling complexity and computational overhead with added modalities. While unified Omni-models address this via Mixture-of-Expert (MoE) architectures with specialized experts and routing, they still inflate parameter counts and introduce routing overhead. In this paper, we propose Omni-C (Omni-Compress), a single dense Transformer-based encoder that learns competitive shared representations across heterogeneous modalities--images, audio, and text--through unimodal contrastive pretraining on large-scale unaligned data. By maximizing parameter sharing in the backbone and using lightweight modality-specific projection heads, Omni-C effectively mitigates inter-modality conflicts without requiring MoE, paired supervision, or routing. This design supports efficient deployment on memory-constrained systems via sequential modality processing and low-memory inference, eliminating the need for parallel expert loading or specialized hardware. Experiments show Omni-C achieves performance comparable to expert models in unimodal and cross-model tasks, with modest zero-shot degradation on audio and text that is largely recovered through lightweight linear probing or parameter efficient fine-tuning. The unified architecture substantially reduces inference memory usage compared to multi-encoder baselines, advancing efficient and scalable multimodal learning.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: t-SNE visualization of image, audio, and text embeddings from pretrained Omni-C model. It shows clear separation of image (red), audio (blue) and text (green) clusters. Embeddings are extracted from samples on ImageNet-1K (images), AudioSet (audio spectrograms), and English Wikipedia (text)
Fig. 2: Unlike the multi-expert (e.g. AudioCLIP [ 2 ] ) in (a) and Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) approaches (e.g. , Uni-MoE 2.0-Omni [ 8 ] ) in (b) which incur linear parameter scaling and routing overhead with added modalities, Omni-C in (c) leverages a single dense Transformer backbone with maximal parameter sharing to achieve competitive unimodal and cross-modal performance while drastically reducing system complexity and inference memory during the deployment. Omni-C model processing multiple heterogeneous modalities (images, audio spectrograms, and text). Images and audio spectrograms are divided into non-overlapping patches and projected via separate 2D convolutional embedding layers, while text sequences are tokenized and projected via a linear embedding layer. A shared learnable global CLS token is prepended to the sequence of embeddings (with modality-specific positional encodings added), and the full sequence is processed by the unified Omni-C Transformer backbone blocks. The final CLS token representation from the backbone is then fed into modality-specific MLP projection heads for unimodal contrastive pretraining.
Model
Cars
DTD
EuroSAT
GTSRB
KITTI
MNIST
RESISC45
SUN397
SVHM
Avg Acc
Expert-Image
2.46
38.28
72.86
22.13
64.21
39.68
41.85
26.07
20.10
36.40
Omni-C (I & A)
2.16
34.10
73.79
21.67
57.03
39.89
43.12
21.70
22.48
35.10
Omni-C (I & T)
2.34
34.26
73.89
22.22
54.69
47.36
43.53
21.47
20.33
35.56
Omni-C (I & A & T)
2.22
33.37
74.97
21.40
57.18
47.84
42.93
20.01
21.80
35.74
TABLE I: Evaluation for zero shot on image downstream task for contrastive pretrained ViT-Base-32 model. I, A, and T denote Image, Audio, and Text, respectively.
Model
VGGSound
EPIC-Sound
SpeechCommand
Nsynth
Avg Acc
Expert-Audio
5.80
9.17
9.48
27.53
12.99
Omni-C (I & A)
2.89
4.64
8.81
20.63
9.24
Omni-C (A& T)
4.86
9.19
7.47
25.63
11.78
Omni-C (I & A &T)
2.63
4.61
9.00
23.43
9.91
TABLE II: Evaluation for zero shot on audio downstream task for contrastive pretrained ViT-Base-32 model. I, A, and T denote Image, Audio, and Text, respectively.
Model
AGNEWS
NEWSGROUPS20
IMDB
CARER
Avg Acc
Expert-Text
80.75
16.30
52.00
21.82
42.71
Omni-C (I & T)
49.54
13.60
55.00
18.07
34.05
Omni-C (A & T)
53.30
12.06
54.14
20.78
35.07
Omni-C (I & A & T)
56.08
12.82
52.85
17.08
34.70
TABLE III: Evaluation for zero shot on text downstream task for contrastive pretrained ViT-Base-32 model. I, A, and T denote Image, Audio, and Text, respectively.
Dataset
Tasks
# cls
# train
# valid
Cars [ 37 ]
Fine-grained car cls.
196
6K
1.7K
DTD [ 38 ]
Texture cls.
47
1.8K
1.8K
EuroSAT [ 39 ]
Land use and land cover cls.
10
18K
4K
GTSRB [ 40 ]
Traffic Sign cls.
43
31K
7.8K
KITTI [ 41 ]
Autonomous driving car cls.
9
9.6K
2K
MNIST [ 42 ]
Hand written digit cls.
10
48K
12K
TABLE IV: Downstream tasks datasets used to evaluate Omni-C on image, audio and text modalities. The table reports the task, number of classes (# cls), number of training samples (# train), and the number of validation samples (# valid) for each datasets.
Fig. 3: Average self-attention maps from the last ViT-Base Transformer layer with 12 heads over 3000 samples for the pretrained models from downstream datasets. (a-c) show attention maps for the modality-specific expert models on images (KITTI), audio spectrograms (VGGSound), and text (AGNews), respectively, exhibiting focused attention patterns that specialize in modality-specific local features. (d-f) show corresponding attention maps for the unified Omni-C model on the same inputs and datasets, revealing distributed attention that concurrently encodes and integrates information from heterogeneous inputs.
Fig. 4: Average self-attention maps from the last ViT-Base Transformer layer with 12 heads over 3000 samples after SBoRA downstream datasets fine tuning . (a-c) show attention maps for the modality-specific expert models on images (KITTI), audio spectrograms (VGGSound), and text (AGNews), respectively. (d-f) show corresponding attention maps for the unified Omni-C model on the same inputs and datasets. Importantly, the Omni-C backbone can effectively recover from its distributed attention (optimized for cross-modal generalization) to focused, modality-specific attention patterns through lightweight parameter-efficient fine-tuning (SBoRA)
Model
Cars
DTD
EuroSAT
GTSRB
KITTI
MNIST
RESISC45
SUN397
SVHM
Avg Acc
Expert-Image
6.87
45.32
92.36
76.76
92.24
90.23
73.67
55.34
49.44
64.69
Omni-C (I & A)
9.35
43.53
91.36
75.15
92.24
91.96
71.98
51.22
47.34
63.79
Omni-C (I & T)
9.04
41.99
91.48
77.91
92.15
92.05
73.27
51.04
47.64
64.06
Omni-C (I & A & T)
8.75
41.18
91.28
76.40
91.41
92.87
72.07
49.03
49.19
63.57
TABLE V: Evaluation for linear probe on image downstream task for contrastive pretrained ViT-Base-32 model. I, A, and T denote Image, Audio, and Text, respectively.
Model
VGGSound
EPIC-Sound
SpeechCommand
Nsynth
Avg Acc
Expert-Audio
15.62
32.87
35.15
48.84
33.12
Omni-C (I & A)
18.13
34.04
36.61
55.89
36.16
Omni-C (A & T)
15.57
32.10
39.28
50.90
34.46
Omni-C (I & A & T)
17.12
32.68
34.98
54.64
34.85
TABLE VI: Evaluation for linear probe on audio downstream task for contrastive pretrained ViT-Base-32 model. I, A, and T denote Image, Audio, and Text, respectively.
Model
AGNEWS
NEWSGROUPS20
IMDB
CARER
Avg Acc
Expert-Text
88.81
45.03
67.35
42.40
60.89
Omni-C (I & T)
87.95
46.32
67.89
45.25
61.85
Omni-C (A & T)
87.76
44.78
69.16
45.71
61.85
Omni-C (I & A & T)
88.22
45.36
68.13
43.68
61.34
TABLE VII: Evaluation for linear probe on text downstream task for contrastive pretrained ViT-Base-32 model. I, A, and T denote Image, Audio, and Text, respectively.
Model
VGGSound
EPIC-Sound
SpeechCommand
Nsynth
Avg Acc
Expert-Audio
38.28
44.92
89.04
72.04
61.07
Omni-C (I & A)
34.03
39.69
85.84
72.17
57.93
Omni-C (A & T)
33.82
40.21
89.60
72.08
58.92
Omni-C (I & A & T)
33.39
39.07
87.61
72.47
58.13
TABLE VIII: Evaluation for SBoRA fine-tuning on audio downstream task for contrastive pretrained ViT-Base-32 model. I, A, and T denote Image, Audio, and Text, respectively.
Model
AGNEWS
NEWSGROUPS20
IMDB
CARER
Avg Acc
Expert-Text
94.30
65.62
85.27
92.02
84.30
Omni-C (I & T)
93.66
62.65
82.12
89.75
82.04
Omni-C (A & T)
94.00
61.50
81.94
89.67
81.77
Omni-C (I & A & T)
93.72
60.25
82.73
90.24
81.73
TABLE IX: Evaluation for SBORA fine-tuning on text downstream task for contrastive pretrained ViT-Base-32 model. I, A, and T denote Image, Audio, and Text, respectively.
Model
Cars
DTD
EuroSAT
GTSRB
KITTI
MNIST
RESISC45
SUN397
SVHM
Avg Acc
Expert-Image
53.57
57.42
98.47
99.95
98.06
99.51
90.18
64.90
95.03
84.12
Omni-C (I & A)
49.93
55.99
98.57
99.88
98.46
99.48
88.62
61.36
94.50
82.97
Omni-C (I & T)
47.81
55.99
98.69
99.83
98.27
99.59
88.97
60.69
94.41
82.69
Omni-C (I & A & T)
45.99
53.36
98.22
99.88
98.41
99.54
88.30
60.31
94.60
82.06
TABLE X: Evaluation for SBoRA fine-tuning on image downstream task for contrastive pretrained ViT-Base-32 model. I, A, and T denote Image, Audio, and Text, respectively.
Fig. 5: SAIL-based [ 4 ] alignment workflow. Features are extracted from the image-text pairs in stage 1. A linear probe is trained in the stage 2 for modality alignment. The same workflow is applied for audio-text alignment.
Model
IParam (M)
Cars
DTD
EuroSAT
GTSRB
KITTI
MNIST
RESISC45
SUN397
SVHM
Avg Acc
Expert-Image-Text [ 4 ]
196.4
0.60
5.02
16.03
2.86
41.26
13.22
8.82
13.97
7.83
12.17
Omni-C (I & T)
111.1
0.66
4.91
17.39
2.36
53.42
3.70
8.89
11.15
11.25
12.63
Omni-C (I & A & T)
111.9
0.42
1.23
16.66
1.75
58.35
12.72
7.70
9.04
16.30
13.79
TABLE XI: Evaluation for CLIP-style zero-shot image classification for image-text aligned ViT-Base-32 model. IParam represents the inference parameter. I, A, and T denote Image, Audio, and Text, respectively.
Model
IParam(M)
VGGSound
EPIC-Sound
SpeechCommand
Nsynth
AvgAcc
Expert-Audio-Text
194.8
2.27
2.37
3.33
9.80
4.44
Omni-C (A & T)
109.5
1.37
1.41
2.31
3.65
2.18
Omni-C (I & A & T)
111.9
0.88
4.39
3.44
9.36
4.51
TABLE XII: Evaluation for CLIP-style zero-shot audio classification for audio-text aligned ViT-Base-32 model. IParam represents the inference parameter. I, A, and T denote Image, Audio, and Text, respectively.
Fig. 6: t-SNE visualization of image, audio, and text embeddings of Omni-C model with share projector head. Samples from ImageNet-1K (red), AudioSet (blue) and English Wikipedia (green). With a shared projector, the embeddings of audio (blue) and text (green) show significant overlapping and mixture in the shared embedding space
Evaluation
Model
Cars
DTD
EuroSAT
GTSRB
KITTI
MNIST
RESISC45
SUN397
SVHM
Avg Acc
ZS
Omni-C-SP
2.58
32.37
75.15
24.19
52.88
47.07
42.78
19.79
22.40
35.46
Omni-C-MP
2.22
33.37
74.97
21.40
57.18
47.84
42.93
20.01
21.80
35.74
LP
Omni-C-SP
5.95
36.16
89.40
69.23
90.76
87.37
64.13
43.34
41.66
58.66
Omni-C-MP
8.75
41.18
91.28
76.40
91.41
92.87
72.07
49.03
49.19
63.57
SBORA FT
Omni-C-SP
46.07
53.20
98.12
99.76
98.02
99.59
87.87
59.30
94.43
81.81
Omni-C-MP
45.99
53.36
98.22
99.88
98.41
99.54
88.30
60.31
94.60
82.06
TABLE XIII: Comparison of zero shot, linear probe and SBORA fine-tuning performance on downstream image classification tasks for pretrained ViT-Base-32 models under different projector settings (shared vs. separate projectors). Here we use unified Omni-C model with image, audio and text modalities. SP represent share projector and MP represent share projector.
Evaluation
Model
VGGSound
EPIC-Sound
SpeechCommand
Nsynth
AvgAcc
ZS
Omni-C-SP
2.36
4.61
9.00
23.43
9.85
Omni-C-MP
2.63
4.61
9.00
13.43
9.91
LP
Omni-C-SP
16.41
32.86
34.97
53.99
34.55
Omni-C-MP
17.12
32.68
34.98
54.64
34.85
SBORA FT
Omni-C-SP
32.63
39.07
86.64
71.73
57.51
Omni-C-MP
33.39
39.07
87.61
72.47
58.13
TABLE XIV: Comparison of zero shot, linear probe and SBORA fine-tuning performance on downstream audio classification tasks for pretrained ViT-Base-32 models under different projector settings (shared vs. separate projectors). Here we use unified Omni-C model with image, audio and text modalities. SP represent share projector and MP represent share projector
Evaluation
Model
AGNEWS
NEWSGROUPS
IMDB
CARER
AvgAcc
ZS
Omni-C-SP
55.67
12.98
57.23
19.22
36.27
Omni-C-MP
56.08
12.82
52.85
17.08
34.70
LP
Omni-C-SP
87.15
43.83
68.67
42.84
60.62
Omni-C-MP
88.22
45.36
68.13
43.68
61.34
SBORA FT
Omni-C-SP
93.53
59.51
82.35
88.55
80.98
Omni-C-MP
93.72
60.25
82.73
90.24
81.73
TABLE XV: Comparison of zero shot, linear probe and SBORA fine-tuning performance on downstream text classification tasks for pretrained ViT-Base-32 models under different projector settings (shared vs. separate projectors). Here we use unified Omni-C model with image, audio and text modalities. SP represent share projector and MP represent share projector
Fig. 7: Uniformity vs. alignment scatter plot of embeddings from the unified Omni-C model (blue circles) and modality-specific expert models (pink square for image, orange triangle for audio, red diamond for text), computed using the SimCSE [ 11 ] evaluation protocol. Lower values on both axes are better (ideal region: bottom-left corner, indicating low uniformity and low alignment).
Media Analytics and Computing Lab, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China · Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China · School of Informatics, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China +1