Multimodal classifiers can converge to modality-dominant solutions in which one modality dominates the joint prediction, suppressing the learning of others. Existing balancing methods mainly adjust losses, gradients, or modality contributions, largely treating modality imbalance as an optimization problem while implicitly treating the weak modality as under-optimized but representationally intact. In this work, we find that this assumption does not always hold, as persistent modality dominance can induce a representation-level collapse of the weak modality, which we term \emph{manifold modality collapse} (MMC). MMC manifests as a coupled geometric degradation in which weak-modality representations collapse onto fewer directions within each class and become less separable across classes. Motivated by this observation, we propose \emph{GeoBalance}, a geometry-aware framework that monitors these two geometric properties and reconstructs the weak modality representation only when it exhibits signs of MMC. Once triggered, GeoBalance uses a fixed Simplex-ETF class scaffold and spectral regularization to restore class separation while preventing collapse onto a few feature directions. To preserve reconstruction during joint training, asymmetric gradient projection removes the joint-gradient component conflicting with reconstruction, leaving non-conflicting optimization unchanged. Extensive experiments across six multimodal benchmarks demonstrate great improvements over competitive balancing methods, validating its effectiveness.
Multimodal learning often suffers from modality imbalance, where modalities that converge faster dominate optimization while others remain undertrained. Existing approaches typically mitigate this issue by strengthening the weak modality or adjusting optimization gradients. However, such strategies mainly compensate for optimization rate discrepancies, often at the expense of the strong modality's optimization capacity, without analyzing how these discrepancies arise at the modality level. Based on theoretical insights and empirical observations, we argue that the discrepancy of learning pace arises from differences in the mapping difficulty between modality-specific feature space and the shared label space. To address this issue, we propose Balanced Multimodal Label Reshaping (BMLR), the first method that promotes multimodal balance from the label-side design. BMLR reshapes the cross-modal label space to equalize mapping difficulty across modalities, thereby facilitating modality interaction and injecting richer inter-class information into each modality. Extensive experiments across multiple architectures demonstrate that BMLR consistently improves multimodal performance and exhibits strong compatibility with diverse model designs. The source code will be released soon.
Contrastive learning is increasingly moving toward settings with three or more modalities instead of image-text pairs. Yet, extending models from pairwise to higher-order multimodal alignment can introduce optimization and representation challenges. We identify encoder Jacobian conditioning as a key factor in trimodal contrastive learning: poorly conditioned encoders exhibit collapsing or amplified singular-value spectra, leading to exploding Jacobian condition numbers and degraded multimodal alignment. We introduce geometry-preserving encoders (GPEs) by directly conditioning the Jacobian through regularization and demonstrating that simple modifications like LeakyReLU activations and residual paths recover these geometric benefits. Across a synthetic benchmark and four real-world datasets including missing modalities, improving Jacobian conditioning boosts retrieval and linear probe performance across multiple contrastive objectives, whereas expressive objectives yield little benefit in linear probes. More broadly, our results show that multimodal contrastive learning depends not only on objective expressivity, but also on the geometric and optimization properties of the underlying encoders.
Multimodal Sentiment Analysis (MSA) remains constrained by modality imbalance, yet the field continues to rely on optimization-based balancing methods that promise more than they deliver. We provide three contributions: 1) a unified evaluation framework testing gradient and loss-based balancing strategies under controlled settings; 2) a theoretical diagnosis explaining why these methods fail, as they conflate fitting speed with discriminative contribution; and 3) a research agenda toward held-out discriminative modality valuation. Experiments on CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI reveal three shortcomings: no strategy reliably outperforms Late Concatenation; performance is sensitive to hyperparameters; and even ratio calibration fails to yield consistent gains. The core issue is fundamental: loss is not utility, and gradients are not importance. Modality imbalance remains unresolved, motivating utility estimation from held-out performance.