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 survival analysis aims to improve cancer prognosis using heterogeneous biomedical data, such as histopathology images and genomic profiles. A common strategy is to align representations across modalities so that shared signals can be captured. However, strong cross-modal alignment can also remove modality-specific evidence that is critical for survival prediction. In this paper, we revisit multimodal survival learning from a simple observation: effective models should first discover shared patterns across modalities, and then preserve modality-specific signals. This motivates a representation learning principle that we refer to as Together Then Apart. Based on this idea, we propose TTA, a framework that balances cross-modal alignment and representation distinctiveness. TTA first performs prototype-based alignment to capture shared survival-related structures between modalities. It then encourages modality-specific distinctiveness through an anchor-guided contrastive objective. To further account for modality imbalance and noisy correspondences, we model cross-modal interactions using unbalanced optimal transport. We evaluate the proposed approach on multiple TCGA cancer cohorts with paired histopathology and genomic data. TTA consistently improves survival prediction over recent multimodal survival models. Moreover, the learned prototype structures reveal interpretable cross-modal patterns associated with clinical outcomes.
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.
The choice between cross-attention and concatenation for multimodal fusion remains governed by practitioner intuition rather than principled understanding. In this paper, we demonstrate that feature alignment quality, not data scale alone, is the primary determinant of which fusion strategy excels. Through controlled experiments on Flickr8k using two feature extraction backbones (ResNet18 and CLIP ViT-B/32), we show that concatenation outperforms cross-attention by 4.1-5.1 percentage points across all tested scales (2048-16384 samples) when features are pre-aligned by a vision-language pretraining objective. We provide a theoretical explanation grounded in sample complexity analysis: concatenation requires O(d_v + d_t) samples to learn its fusion projection, while cross-attention requires O(d_v * d_t) samples to learn bilinear attention weights, over 256 times as many for 512-dimensional CLIP features. When features are already aligned, the approximation error gap between the two methods vanishes, and concatenation's sample efficiency dominates at all practical dataset sizes. An alignment degradation study confirms a monotonic trend: as feature alignment degrades, concatenation's advantage grows from 1.3% to 2.8%. These findings provide a principled decision framework for fusion method selection in multimodal systems, with direct implications for the design of Multimodal Large Language Models.