The Indra Representation Hypothesis for Multimodal Alignment
Authors: Jianglin Lu, Hailing Wang, Kuo Yang, Yitian Zhang, Simon Jenni, Yun Fu
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northeastern University · Adobe Research · Khoury College of Computer Science, Northeastern University
Recent studies have uncovered an interesting phenomenon: unimodal foundation models tend to learn convergent representations, regardless of differences in architecture, training objectives, or data modalities. However, these representations are essentially internal abstractions of samples that characterize samples independently, leading to limited expressiveness. In this paper, we propose The Indra Representation Hypothesis, inspired by the philosophical metaphor of Indra's Net. We argue that representations from unimodal foundation models are converging to implicitly reflect a shared relational structure underlying reality, akin to the relational ontology of Indra's Net. We formalize this hypothesis using the V-enriched Yoneda embedding from category theory, defining the Indra representation as a relational profile of each sample with respect to others. This formulation is shown to be unique, complete, and structure-preserving under a given cost function. We instantiate the Indra representation using angular distance and evaluate it in cross-model and cross-modal scenarios involving vision, language, and audio. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Indra representations consistently enhance robustness and alignment across architectures and modalities, providing a theoretically grounded and practical framework for training-free alignment of unimodal foundation models. Our code is available at https://github.com/Jianglin954/Indra.
Figures & tables
CIFAR-10
σ=0.0
σ=3.0
σ=5.0
σ=7.0
ViT
93.98
87.75
79.77
68.15
Indra
94.84
89.51
80.84
68.71
Convnext
97.00
85.89
80.10
65.85
Indra
97.21
92.86
81.59
66.64
Dinov2
99.19
95.21
85.57
76.54
Indra
99.14
96.87
89.73
77.92
Table 1: Accuracy (%) on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 under different Gaussian noise levels.
Art
σ=0.0
σ=3.0
σ=5.0
σ=7.0
ViT
80.25
64.40
44.03
22.63
Indra
79.63
65.02
43.62
27.57
Convnext
89.71
62.76
27.98
12.14
Indra
87.86
59.88
28.81
14.20
Dinov2
87.65
73.05
46.91
27.78
Indra
87.04
70.99
47.53
27.37
Table 2: Accuracy (%) on Office-Home dataset under different Gaussian noise levels.
D
Vis-E
Lan-E
R
Top- 5
Top- 10
Top- 30
Top- 50
T → I
I → T
T → I
I → T
T → I
I → T
T → I
I → T
MS-COCO
CLIP-I
CLIP-T
Orign
1.420
1.381
2.734
2.661
7.634
7.470
12.212
11.986
ViT
BERT
Orign
0.482
0.483
0.967
0.966
2.911
2.905
4.863
4.846
Indra
0.663
0.832
1.303
1.613
3.787
4.426
6.199
7.036
ViT
Roberta
Orign
0.486
0.491
0.970
0.981
2.912
2.927
4.853
4.874
Indra
1.048
0.880
2.065
1.749
5.970
5.149
9.702
8.446
Table 3: Performance on image-text datasets D using different representations R ( Orign : original, Indra : Indra representation) with various vision ( Vis-E ) and language ( Lan-E ) models.
D
Aud-E
Lan-E
R
Top- 5
Top- 10
Top- 30
Top- 50
T → A
A → T
T → A
A → T
T → A
A → T
T → A
A → T
TIMIT
CLAP-I
CLAP-T
Orign
1.062
1.836
2.046
3.611
5.726
10.146
9.204
16.225
wav2vec-b
Roberta
Orign
0.319
0.072
0.670
0.276
2.214
1.409
3.655
2.750
Indra
0.413
0.578
0.819
1.209
2.506
2.953
4.225
4.692
wav2vec-l
Roberta
Orign
0.418
0.308
0.864
0.634
2.548
2.194
4.200
3.738
Indra
0.363
0.578
0.908
1.243
2.783
2.956
4.640
4.318
Table 4: Performance on audio-text dataset D using different representations R ( Orign : original, Indra : Indra representation) with various audio ( Aud-E ) and language ( Lan-E ) models, where *-b and *-l refer to the base and large versions of model * , respectively.