Fusing multiple modalities is expected to improve model performance. However, on the MultiHuSE dataset, early, late, and symmetric attention fusion often fail to outperform the best unimodal baseline (text). Pathway isolation of a symmetric attention fusion model reveals that the text-pathway accuracy drops from 74.9% to 56.4% after fusion in one such setting, indicating that the dominant modality can be degraded during integration. We term this strong-modality collapse and argue that it helps explain why some multimodal models fail to surpass unimodal baselines. We propose Inverted Asymmetric Fusion (IAF), which avoids forcing mutual attention across modalities. The dominant modality is preserved by passing through fusion unchanged, while weaker modalities attend to it as a contextual anchor. Before fusion, weaker modalities are strengthened using Modality-Aware Knowledge Distillation. We evaluate IAF on three benchmarks with different modality hierarchies: text-dominant datasets (MultiHuSE, UR-FUNNY) and an audio-visual-dominant dataset (MUStARD). Pathway isolation shows that IAF preserves the dominant modality's internal accuracy at its unimodal ceiling across all tested configurations, whereas symmetric fusion degrades it by up to 18.5% on MultiHuSE. IAF improves over the strongest unimodal baseline by up to 8.25%.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Text-pathway accuracy on MultiHuSE (E5 encoder). Symmetric fusion degrades the dominant modality by 18.5 pp; IAF preserves it (Table 5 ).
Figure 2: Overview of the proposed two-stage framework. Stage 1 performs Modality-Aware Knowledge Distillation, and Stage 2 applies the Inverted Asymmetric Fusion.
Modality / Feature
Base Acc(%)
Base F1(%)
Dist. Acc(%)
Dist. F1(%)
MultiHuSE — 5-class humor style | Text ≫ Audio ≫ Video
Text: BERT
68.26 ± 2.25
68
70.21 ± 2.82
70
Text: E5 ⋆
74.86 ± 3.08
75
–
–
Audio: Dasheng
60.45 ± 1.58
60
62.90 ± 1.83
63
Video: PE-Core
43.66 ± 1.29
43
45.57 ± 1.22
46
Video: VideoMAE
40.13 ± 0.73
40
41.01 ± 1.60
41
Table 1: Unimodal results across all three benchmarks. Base : raw pre-trained; Dist. : knowledge-distilled. ⋆ = dominant modality. MultiHuSE and MUStARD: mean ± SD over 5-fold CV; UR-FUNNY: single split.
Text
Video
Architecture
Acc
F1
Δ
Audio: Dasheng used across all configurations
Text: BERT (base 68.26%)
BERT
VideoMAE
Early Fusion
67.22 ± 2.00
67
−1.04
Late Fusion
68.05 ± 2.12
68
−0.21
Symmetric Fusion
69.42 ± 1.48
69
+1.16
Proposed (IAF)
73.16 ± 2.59
72
+4.90
Table 2: Trimodal fusion results on MultiHuSE. Δ = gain over the strongest unimodal text baseline (BERT = 68.26%; E5 = 74.86%). All metrics in %.
Method
Context
Acc (%)
F1 (%)
Δuni
Prior published methods
C-MFN Kamrul Hasan et al. (2019)
×
64.47
–
–
C-MFN Kamrul Hasan et al. (2019)
✓
65.23
–
–
AGM(Late fusion) Li et al. (2023a)
×
65.97
–
–
AGM(Early fusion) Li et al. (2023a)
×
66.07
–
–
MULTIBENCH Pu Liang et al. (2021)
✓
66.70
–
–
Table 3: Results on UR-FUNNY. All methods use GloVe/COVAREP/OpenFace features Kamrul Hasan et al. (2019) . Δuni = gain over the GloVe baseline (62.47%) for our internal baselines. Context: ✓ = punchline + context; × = punchline only. † Seed 999; mean 69.70±0.61% over 5 seeds.
Method
Context
Acc(%)
F1(%)
Δuni
Prior published methods
MULTIBENCH Pu Liang et al. (2021)
✓
71.8 ± 0.3
—
–
SVM (BERT) Castro et al. (2019)
✓
—
71.5
–
SWIA Chauhan et al. (2020)
✓
—
72.6
–
CE (BART) Ray et al. (2022)
✓
—
74.2
–
MuLOT (BERT) Pramanick et al. (2022)
×
74.52
—
–
Table 4: Results on MUStARD. Δuni = gain over Dasheng audio unimodal baseline (our internal baselines only).
Text
Video
Archi.
Full Fusion
Text Path
Audio Path
Video Path
MultiHuSE – Dominant Modality: TEXT – BERT=70.2%, E5=74.9%
BERT
VideoMAE
Symmetric
69.42 ± 1.48
61.3 ± 2.5
59.0 ± 4.5
60.1 ± 1.3
IAF
73.16 ± 2.59
70.2 ± 2.8
55.8 ± 7.4
57.5 ± 5.0
PE-Core
Symmetric
72.00 ± 1.20
63.5 ± 1.6
63.6 ± 2.3
61.6 ± 7.2
IAF
74.74 ± 1.71
70.2 ± 2.8
62.9 ± 2.5
65.6 ± 3.1
E5
VideoMAE
Symmetric
72.37 ± 2.73
56.4 ± 4.6
63.7 ± 9.2
67.4 ± 3.3
Table 5: Pathway isolation analysis. Each score reflects accuracy using only the corresponding modality pathway, bypassing fusion aggregation. Bold = dominant modality pathway. All metrics in %.
Dataset
Config
Feat.
Acc(%) ± SD
F1(%)
Δ (%)
MultiHuSE
BERT+PEC
Base
72.33 ± 2.02
72
-2.41
Dist
74.74 ± 1.71
74
–
E5+PEC
Base
75.90 ± 6.17
76
-2.16
Dist
78.06 ± 3.82
78
–
MUStARD
BERT+PEC
Base
81.59 ± 3.85
82
-1.02
Dist
82.61 ± 3.92
83
–
Table 6: Distillation ablation: raw (Base) vs. distilled (Dist.) features within IAF. Δ = Dist − Base.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
MultiHuSE
UR-FUNNY
MUStARD
Optimiser
AdamW
Adam
AdamW
Learning rate
6×10−5
1×10−5
1×10−3
Weight decay
10−3
10−3
10−2
Max epochs
100
80
100
Early stopping patience
35
20
40
Gradient clipping
1.0
—
1.0
Appendix
Table 7: Dataset-specific hyperparameters for the fusion
Hyperparameter
Value
KD loss weights (α,β,γ)
0.4, 0.35, 0.25
Temperature T
3.5
Optimiser
AdamW
Weight decay
10−3
Text/Audio LR
10−4 – 10−3
Video LR
9×10−5
Appendix
Table 8: Distillation stage hyperparameters.
Configuration
Pure
Attends
Acc(%) ± SD
F1(%)
MultiHuSE — Text dominant (E5, Dasheng, PE-Core)
Full Trimodal
Text
Audio, Video
78.06 ± 3.82
78
T+V
Text
Video
76.61 ± 4.58
77
T+A
Text
Audio
76.57 ± 2.92
76
A+V (Text-Free)
Audio
Video
65.85 ± 1.63
65
UR-FUNNY — Text dominant (GloVe, COVAREP, OpenFace)
Appendix
Table 9: Bimodal ablation of E5 and GloVe-based configuration for IAF
Configuration
Pure
Attends
Acc (%) ± SD
F1 (%)
MultiHuSE — Text dominant (BERT, Dasheng, PE-Core)
Table 10: Bimodal fusion for BERT configurations on MultiHuSE and MUStARD.
Mixup
Curriculum
Acc (%) ± SD
F1
Δ (%)
MultiHuSE (BERT + Dasheng + PE-Core)
✓
✓
74.74 ± 1.71
74
–
✗
✓
73.49 ± 3.15
73
−1.25
✓
✗
72.58 ± 3.80
72
−2.16
✗
✗
70.75 ± 2.67
70
−3.99
MultiHuSE (E5 + Dasheng + PE-Core)
Appendix
Table 11: Regularisation ablation across MultiHuSE, UR-FUNNY, and MUStARD. ✓✓ = both Mixup and Curriculum Dropout enabled (full model); Δ = accuracy change relative to the full model. All metrics in %.
Table 12: Gate mechanism ablation across all three datasets. Learnable = sample-adaptive weights; Hierarchy = fixed weights derived from modality ranking; Uniform = equal weights (T=A=V=0.33). Δ = accuracy difference relative to the Learnable gate.
Figure 3: Dominant-modality pathway accuracy for all configurations (data from Table 5 ). Shaded regions group MultiHuSE (blue) and MUStARD (purple) configurations.
Figure 4: Joint t-SNE of features used at the final classification step for the text pathway under IAF ( left ) and symmetric fusion ( right ), fold 4 of MultiHuSE (E5 + PE-Core, distilled). Green = correctly classified by that pathway; red = misclassified.
Text
Feat.
Δ (%)
wˉT
wˉA
wˉV
MultiHuSE (Text pure ∣ Dasheng+PE-Core)
BERT+PE-Core
Base
+4.07[B]
0.474
0.355
0.171
Dist.
+6.48[B]
0.355
0.206
0.439
E5+PE-Core
Base
+1.04[E]
0.431
0.425
0.144
Dist.
+3.20[E]
0.412
0.197
0.391
UR-FUNNY (Text pure ∣ COVAREP + OpenFace)
Appendix
Table 13: Mean learned gate weights across CV folds at the best checkpoint. Δ = gain over dominant unimodal baseline (MultiHuSE: BERT = 68.26%, E5 = 74.86%; UR-FUNNY: GloVe = 62.47%; MUStARD: Dasheng = 78.12%). [B] / [E] : gap from BERT/E5 baseline. Base = raw pre-trained; Dist. = knowledge-distilled.
Sample text
True
Pred
wT
wA
wV
(i) High text weight, correctly classified
Joe Kennedy III reveals how his GOP counterparts really feel about Trump’s tweets.
Neu
Neu
0.970
0.006
0.024
✓
Katy Perry wears American flag dress to kids in overall concerts.
Neu
Neu
0.961
0.018
0.020
✓
Porn actress confirms Trump affair after unpublished 2011 interview.
Neu
Neu
0.959
0.020
0.021
✓
(ii) Low text weight, correctly classified
The only positive thing about you is your HIV status.
Agg
Agg
0.023
0.548
0.429
✓
Appendix
Table 14: Representative IAF gate weight profiles (E5 + PE-Core, MultiHuSE, all folds). This table contains potentially offensive or sensitive example text reproduced from the dataset for analysis. Class labels: Aff = Affiliative, Agg = Aggressive, Neu = Neutral, S-enh = Self-enhancing. wT+wA+wV=1 per sample. ✓ correct; ✗ incorrect.
Setting
Coeff. ( α / β / γ )
BERT Dist.
Audio Dist.
Video Dist.
IAF (BERT)
IAF (E5)
Default †
0.40 / 0.35 / 0.25
70.21 ± 2.82
62.90 ± 1.83
45.57 ± 1.22
74.74 ± 1.71
78.06 ± 3.82
Equal weights
0.33 / 0.33 / 0.33
69.92 ± 2.79
63.11 ± 1.54
44.66 ± 1.57
74.37 ± 2.33
78.06 ± 3.36
CE-heavy
0.60 / 0.25 / 0.15
69.63 ± 2.75
62.78 ± 1.18
45.95 ± 0.98
74.03 ± 2.48
76.86 ± 4.32
Soft-target-heavy
0.25 / 0.55 / 0.20
70.17 ± 2.58
62.86 ± 1.10
44.74 ± 1.35
73.33 ± 2.32
76.90 ± 4.18
Range
–
0.58
0.33
1.29
1.41
1.20
Appendix
Table 15: Distillation coefficient sensitivity on MultiHuSE (5-fold CV, mean ± SD %). † = setting used in all main experiments. IAF columns use distilled students; Audio = Dasheng, Video = PE-Core throughout. “Range” reports max − min across the four settings.
Method
Stage
Teacher
Purpose
Procedure
Cross-M KD Albanie et al. (2018) Thoker and Gall (2019)
Pre-fusion †
Paired modality
Unimodal transfer
Sequential
Wang et al. Wang et al. (2020a)
Within fusion
Full multimodal
Dropout robustness
Joint
MMANet Wei et al. (2023)
Within fusion
Full multimodal
Missing-modality
Joint
DMD Li et al. (2023b)
Within fusion
Subspace teachers
Repr. disentanglement
Concurrent
MTMD Lin and Hu (2024)
Within fusion
Unimodal + fused
Heterogeneity reduction
Concurrent
MAKD (Ours)
Pre-fusion
Dom. unimodal
Encoder strengthening
Sequential
Appendix
Table 16: Design comparison of multimodal knowledge distillation methods. † Not designed in the context of a subsequent fusion stage.
Multimodal fusion must simultaneously refine modality-specific signals and model cross-modal interactions; two competing objectives typically entangled within the same operation. We propose SeRIn (Segregate, Refine, Integrate), a multimodal LM fusion scheme that enforces this separation as an architectural prior. Modality-specific representations evolve along isolated pathways, each refined against its respective encoder context, while a dedicated cross-modal pathway accumulates their joint evolution without contaminating unimodal streams. Full cross-modal interaction is deferred to a final prediction step - ablations confirm that structured interactions, not added capacity, drive the gains; gate analysis under visual corruption reveals emergent modality reweighting without explicit supervision. SeRIn achieves state-of-the-art results on CH-SIMS and CMU-MOSEI, improving all metrics on both benchmarks.
Alexios Filippakopoulos, Elias Kallioras, Nikolaos Xiros +2
National Technical University of Athens, Greece · Athena Research Center, Greece · University of Bern, Switzerland +2
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.
Zhiqiang Zhou, Xuezhen Xie
Hunan Chemical Industry Vocational and Technical College
Multimodal physiological data powers clinical AI systems from intensive care units to wearable devices, but sensors routinely fail in practice. Two failure modes are common: modality missing, where an entire channel is absent, and within-modality missing, where a contiguous time segment is lost. No existing benchmark evaluates multiple fusion architectures under both failure modes at controlled severity levels across diverse clinical datasets. We present MuteBench, a benchmark covering 9 datasets from 7 clinical domains, 6 fusion architectures, and 2 missing-data modes over 125,000 samples. Through this benchmark, we find that architecture family is the strongest predictor of robustness, outweighing parameter count. Channel-independent models tolerate modality missing well but can be sensitive to within-modality missing, especially on short sequences. Curriculum modality dropout protects reliably only up to the maximum dropout rate used in training. We also find that channel count, sequence length, and modality alignment jointly determine which failure mode poses the greater threat. Finally, a PTB-XL case study suggests that diffusion-based imputation can improve downstream classification under within-modality missing, with the largest gains for models whose expert routing is most sensitive to corrupted inputs, though broader validation across datasets remains an open direction. MuteBench provides practitioners with concrete guidance for both selecting existing architectures and informing the design of future robust multimodal fusion methods.
Wugeng Zheng, Ziwen Kan, Tianyu Hu +3
University of Central Florida · University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill