Context-specific Credibility-aware Multimodal Fusion with Conditional Probabilistic Circuits

Multimodal fusion architectures typically assume all modalities are available at inference, yet sensor failures, acquisition variability, and cost constraints routinely produce incomplete observations. Existing work treats modality absence as a prediction-accuracy problem, leaving a more basic question unanswered: whether a model's confidence estimates remain calibrated when an entire input stream is removed. We argue that missing-modality robustness and calibrated uncertainty are a single coupled property, and introduce Modality-Conditioned Conformal Fusion (MCCF), an architecture that addresses both at once. MCCF combines a multimodal bottleneck fusion backbone trained with modality dropout, per-modality evidential heads producing modality-decomposed Dirichlet distributions, and a Dempster-Shafer combination rule that fuses the per-modality evidence into a joint predictive distribution; an absent modality contributes vacuous evidence that is structurally ignored, so the fused uncertainty automatically reflects the reduced information without test-time imputation. A Mondrian conformal calibration module keyed on the modality-presence mask then provides finite-sample group-conditional coverage for every non-empty modality subset. MCCF is, to our knowledge, the first method with formal coverage guarantees under arbitrary modality availability through architectural integration rather than post-hoc recalibration, and the evidential decomposition yields per-modality vacuity scores that localise uncertainty to the absent modality responsible. Across a synthetic problem and three real multimodal benchmarks, MCCF holds its target coverage on every modality-presence subset, substantially narrows the coverage gap between full and partial modalities relative to a marginal split-conformal baseline, and imposes no measurable accuracy cost relative to temperature-scaled and evidential baselines.

Many multimodal systems estimate the reliability of each modality and weight their contributions to the final prediction. However, it remains unclear whether these scores influence model decisions or merely correlate with performance. We propose a simple diagnostic to test whether reliability information is used during inference. After training, the model and inputs are fixed while reliability scores are permuted across test examples. If predictions depend on these scores, performance should degrade. Experiments on StressID for stress recognition and CMU-MOSEI for sentiment analysis show that permuting reliability scores leaves performance unchanged despite substantial potential gains from selecting the best modality per example. In positive controls where reliability signals identify the correct modality, the same frozen fusion rules yield significant improvements, indicating that reliability signals influence fused decisions only when they reliably predict unimodal correctness.

Real-world multimodal systems must be robust against low-quality data, such as sensor noise, incomplete multimodal data and conflicting inputs. However, existing trustworthy fusion methods rely on the model's own prediction confidence to judge data quality. This creates a circular dependency: when a model is confident but wrong, these methods fail to detect the error. To break this loop, we propose Geometry-based Multimodal Fusion (GMF). Instead of relying on predictions, we evaluate reliability by measuring how much transport correction the input needs in latent space. We implement Diffusion Schrödinger Bridge transport with Rectified Flow, where the squared initial velocity gives an efficient learned correction score. Valid data has low squared velocity magnitude, while noisy, incomplete data or conflicting data requires stronger transport correction. This geometry-based reliability signal acts as an independent judge, effectively flagging unreliable inputs even when the classifier is fooled. Extensive experiments demonstrate that GMF significantly improves robustness against severe sensor noise and semantic conflicts compared to confidence-based baselines.