Tactile-visual-language models combine vision and touch through a shared language space to recognize objects and materials. In real-world deployment, changes in lighting, contact quality or sensor hardware can shift visual or tactile inputs and degrade recognition performance. When both modalities contribute to a prediction, an unreliable modality can override correct evidence from the other. Since labeled data are generally unavailable during deployment, test-time adaptation offers a way to recover recognition performance from unlabeled observations. In this setting, we find that comparing accumulated observations with the text embeddings of candidate classes reveals modality reliability differences that confidence can miss. Refining features against competing classes also improves recognition beyond geometric alignment alone. These findings motivate SenseAlign, which uses a common semantic reference for test-time modality weighting and feature correction. Alignment Trust weights each modality according to its support for shared predicted classes. Anchor Realignment uses the same class text embeddings to fit a shared feature correction that separates predicted classes from alternatives. Both modules use the same unlabeled history while keeping all encoders frozen. Extensive experiments across diverse datasets demonstrate strong recognition performance under both natural shifts and controlled corruptions.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Vision and touch under sensing and hardware shifts. Natural changes in lighting or contact can affect the modalities unequally. The upper panel uses brightness and defocus corruptions to illustrate three possible modality relationships. The lower panel shows separate wire contacts recorded by GelSight Mini, DIGIT and DuraGel, illustrating differences across tactile sensor hardware and capture conditions.
Figure 2: Modality reliability varies with backbone and stream. (a) Selected class pairs projected along their text-embedding decision direction. Stars mark text anchors; percentages give each class’s share on its own side of the dashed boundary, not full-vocabulary accuracy. Arrows show shifts from equal-fusion to SenseAlign class centres; wv is the mean vision weight. (b) Stream-level accuracy; green arrows and labels give gains over frozen equal fusion in percentage points.
Figure 3: Semantic alignment distinguishes modalities when confidence misranks them. (a) Standardized scores between pseudo-label group means and text embeddings. Columns follow the row-label order; grey rows lack accepted observations. The red box highlights the visual branch’s strong scores for plastic across groups. (b) Frozen accuracy, mean top-1 probability, final-memory alignment α and mean online vision weight. Green and red outlines indicate whether confidence or alignment favors the more or less accurate modality; crosses show alignment with randomized memory labels. Purple diamonds show SenseAlign’s vision weights.
Figure 4: A shared history supports modality weighting and feature correction. Past unlabeled observations supply both modules with shared group statistics. Anchor Realignment fits R using fused means (circles) and class text embeddings (stars), then refines class separation. Alignment Trust compares standardized group–text scores to assign fusion weights. Dashed arrows pass the shared correction and weights to the prediction path; the same correction is applied to both branches before weighted fusion. Encoders remain frozen. Positions, colors and bar lengths are schematic.
Frozen accuracy
Regime
Benchmark
Model
Streams
Presentations
Classes
Vision
Touch
Fusion
TacQuad (clean)
UniTouch
3 sensors
1,536
24
54.5
0 0.6
46.4
TacQuad (15 corruptions)
UniTouch
45
23,040
24
53.7
0 0.6
39.4
ObjectFolder Real
UniTouch
5 splits
3,395
7
48.7
16.2
40.8
Touch unreliable
RCT
UniTouch
1
9,620
7
62.8
11.4
48.1
Touch dominant
ObjectFolder Real
AnyTouch
5 splits
3,395
7
37.3
74.6
71.7
Table 1: Evaluation protocol and frozen accuracy (%), one original prompt per class. Presentations count paired observations. Touch is unreliable near/below chance (4.2% for 24 classes, 14.3% for seven), dominant when more accurate; both sensors are informative when well above chance. Labels are retrospective and unavailable to adaptation. Natural shifts weight groups and streams equally; TAG-C aggregation is detailed in the appendix.
UniTouch
AnyTouch
Method
TacQuad clean
TacQuad corr.
OFR
RCT
Mean
TacQuad clean
TacQuad corr.
OFR
RCT
Mean
Frozen ∘
46.4
39.4
40.8
48.1
43.7
42.2
37.4
71.7
29.5
45.2
Frozen Vision
54.5
53.7
48.7
62.8
54.9
42.2
32.0
37.3
47.1
39.6
Frozen Tactile
0.6
0.6
16.2
11.4
7.2
18.1
18.1
74.6
18.1
32.3
TENT
45.5
36.8
35.0
26.5
35.9
41.1
35.1
69.7
19.4
41.3
SAR
46.4
39.3
40.6
39.7
41.5
42.0
37.2
71.6
24.7
43.9
Table 2: Natural-shift accuracy (%) with one prompt per class. Both models share four panels; Mean weights panels equally. OFR uses five released-order splits. Frozen ∘ uses equal fusion.
Figure 5: Modality weights adapt across streams, with gains over equal fusion. (a) Online vision weights: the median across TacQuad streams and individual trajectories elsewhere. Grey TAG-C curves are solid for AnyTouch and dashed for UniTouch; V/T indicate visual/tactile corruption. (b) UniTouch TacQuad accuracy averaged over three sensors per condition. Hollow diamonds denote frozen equal fusion, filled diamonds SenseAlign, and grey dots other baselines. (c) TAG-C gains over matched equal fusion in percentage points under visual or tactile corruption; blue denotes UniTouch and teal AnyTouch.
AnyTouch
UniTouch
Overall
Method
Visual
Tactile
Mixed
Mean
Visual
Tactile
Mixed
Mean
Mean
Frozen ∘
56.1
59.1
55.2
56.8
52.8
50.3
49.6
50.9
53.8
TENT
53.0
60.2
2.4
38.6
46.3
32.2
33.6
37.4
38.0
SAR
52.4
56.9
44.1
51.1
58.9
53.1
57.7
56.6
53.9
SuMi
56.7
60.8
51.6
56.4
49.8
45.4
16.0
37.1
46.7
RoTTA
62.2
57.1
50.0
56.4
42.4
47.4
31.3
40.4
48.4
Table 3: TAG-C severity-3 accuracy (%), one prompt per class; means weight scenarios equally. ∘ : equal fusion. Bold/underline: best/second.
Configuration
GelSight Mini
DIGIT
DuraGel
Mean
Equal fusion
55.15
42.31
30.23
42.56
Trust only
46.76
45.06
41.01
44.27
Realign only
54.18
38.34
32.69
41.74
SenseAlign
56.50
46.23
41.24
47.99
Table 4: Components on AnyTouch TacQuad. One prompt per class; accuracy (%). Groups are weighted equally within each sensor; Mean weights sensors equally.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Step
Operation
1
Encode both modalities with frozen encoders; normalize their features.
2
If C>2 , N≥16 and history changed, form μc=Sc/Λc , construct Q , initialize P by minimum-change Procrustes, and refine P using Equation 9 .
3
Apply the correction fitted to earlier observations to each branch, fuse with equal weights, classify with the shared text anchors, and record every prediction. Use the identity map before warm-up or when C=2 .
4
Compute the pseudo-label and positive-margin weight from raw frozen fusion.
5
Append the current batch’s raw statistics using Equation 13 . Mark the fit for recomputation if any observation was accepted.
Appendix
Table 5: Anchor Realignment alone for one batch. All fitted state is based on earlier batches; fusion weights remain equal. SenseAlign also computes modality weights from the shared memory, as specified in Section 4.2 .
Setting
Value
Encoder parameters updated
None
Classification reference
One normalized text embedding per class
Initialization targets
Same anchors as the classifier
History weighting
Positive top-two cosine margin
Refinement class weighting
Norm of accumulated class mean
Default residual coefficient
β=0.2
Appendix
Table 6: Default SenseAlign settings. Main-table exceptions are listed in Table 7 . All comparisons use one original prompt per class.
Model
Scenario
β
g
AnyTouch
TacQuad clean
0.2
8
AnyTouch
TacQuad corrupted
0.4
1
AnyTouch
ObjectFolder Real
0.2
1
AnyTouch
RCT
0.1
64
AnyTouch
TAG-C Visual
0.2
4
AnyTouch
TAG-C Tactile
0.2
4
Appendix
Table 7: SenseAlign settings for every main-table scenario. All rows use 16 accepted observations before adaptation.
Figure 6: Sensitivity to feature correction and modality weighting. Cells report accuracy (%); colours show the drop from each panel’s best tested setting on a shared scale.
Condition
Equal fusion
SenseAlign
SenseAlign − fusion
Clean
46.45
58.59
+12.14
Brightness
40.55
54.24
+13.70
Contrast
38.29
59.53
+21.24
Defocus blur
42.99
53.97
+10.98
Elastic
33.43
49.52
+16.09
Fog
40.16
57.26
+17.10
Appendix
Table 8: UniTouch on each TacQuad condition (accuracy, %), averaging named targets within a sensor and then the three sensors. The last column is SenseAlign minus equal fusion.
Condition
Equal fusion
SenseAlign
SenseAlign − fusion
Clean
48.09
60.49
+12.40
Brightness
42.74
60.77
+18.03
Contrast
37.97
61.60
+23.63
Defocus blur
38.73
52.84
+14.10
Elastic
37.63
47.55
+9.92
Fog
38.06
52.87
+14.82
Appendix
Table 9: GelSight Mini on TacQuad with UniTouch (accuracy, %). The last column is SenseAlign minus equal fusion.
Condition
Equal fusion
SenseAlign
SenseAlign − fusion
Clean
43.46
57.81
+14.35
Brightness
35.45
51.57
+16.12
Contrast
31.56
63.13
+31.57
Defocus blur
38.22
54.22
+16.00
Elastic
28.29
54.46
+26.17
Fog
35.03
63.26
+28.23
Appendix
Table 10: DIGIT on TacQuad with UniTouch (accuracy, %). The last column is SenseAlign minus equal fusion.
Condition
Equal fusion
SenseAlign
SenseAlign − fusion
Clean
47.79
57.47
+9.68
Brightness
43.45
50.40
+6.94
Contrast
45.33
53.85
+8.52
Defocus blur
52.01
54.86
+2.85
Elastic
34.38
46.55
+12.17
Fog
47.39
55.66
+8.27
Appendix
Table 11: DuraGel on TacQuad with UniTouch (accuracy, %). The last column is SenseAlign minus equal fusion.
Split
Equal fusion
SenseAlign
SenseAlign − fusion
0
41.11
59.91
+18.79
1
46.63
41.91
-4.73
2
48.71
51.93
+3.22
3
38.89
57.88
+18.98
4
28.46
30.88
+2.42
Appendix
Table 12: UniTouch on the five ObjectFolder Real test splits (accuracy, %, objects weighted equally). Default β=0.2 , g=4 results; the selected main-table configuration is reported separately. The last column is SenseAlign minus equal fusion.
UniTouch
AnyTouch
Method
TacQuad clean
TacQuad corr.
OFR
RCT
Mean
TacQuad clean
TacQuad corr.
OFR
RCT
Mean
READ
9.9
9.1
17.9
26.4
15.9
12.1
9.7
18.0
3.3
10.8
Appendix
Table 13: READ natural-shift accuracy (%) on the tactile–visual backbones. The four panels, input order and aggregation match Table 2 ; each Mean weights its four panels equally.
AnyTouch
UniTouch
Overall
Method
Visual
Tactile
Mixed
Mean
Visual
Tactile
Mixed
Mean
Mean
READ
6.4
10.2
0.1
5.6
1.3
23.2
6.5
10.3
7.9
Appendix
Table 14: READ TAG-C accuracy (%) at severity 3 on the tactile–visual backbones. Scenarios and aggregation match Table 3 ; each model Mean weights three scenarios equally, and Overall weights all six.
Method
Clean
Corruptions
READ
-36.50
-30.23
SuMi
-0.08
-0.53
TDA
+2.68
+4.20
OGA
+5.65
+6.71
StatA
+4.86
+5.82
TSA
-2.98
-3.08
Appendix
Table 15: Reported external method minus equal fusion with one prompt per class on TacQuad. Differences are in percentage points. StatA uses FP64 arithmetic.
Method
ObjectFolder Real
RCT
READ
-22.81
-21.65
SuMi
-1.42
-21.85
TDA
+1.82
-10.90
OGA
+7.31
-39.02
StatA
+5.48
+12.15
TSA
-3.21
-36.18
Appendix
Table 16: Reported external method minus equal fusion with one prompt per class on natural shifts. Differences are in percentage points. StatA uses FP64 arithmetic.
Dataset
FP32 invalid batches
Finite rows
Disagreements
FP32 accuracy
TacQuad
52
23744
10438
—
ObjectFolder Real
0
3395
399
42.00
RCT
217
6160
470
—
Appendix
Table 17: StatA numerical precision diagnostic on the completed full streams.
Condition
SenseAlign minus fusion
Visual mean
+4.04
Tactile mean
+10.53
Overall mean
+7.29
Visual corruptions
Brightness
+4.90
Defocus blur
+5.40
Appendix
Table 18: UniTouch TAG-C differences from single-prompt equal fusion at default β=0.2 , g=4 (percentage points).
Figure 7: Geometric matching and class discrimination. Raw denotes uncorrected features; Procrustes and CE denote geometric initialization and subsequent cross-entropy refinement. (a) Mean cosine similarity to the correct-class text embedding and the mean across all class embeddings. (b) Mean gap between the correct-class score and the strongest incorrect-class score. Scores are evaluated retrospectively using the final memory.
Backbone
Stage
Correct
Rival
Gap
Accuracy (%)
AnyTouch
Raw
0.1044
0.0946
0.0098
72.30
Procrustes, β=.2
0.2843
0.2610
0.0233
81.25
CE, β=.2
0.1148
0.0823
0.0325
89.35
Same CE map, β=1
-0.0001
-0.0628
0.0627
94.32
Appendix
Table 24: Stage scores and retrospective accuracy on the same ObjectFolder Real replay. Correct and Rival are the means of riyi and maxj=yirij ; Gap is their difference. The last row applies the same refined map with β=1 without refitting a map optimized at β=0.2 .
Backbone
Raw
O only
H only
Full B
Common norm.
AnyTouch
72.30
86.93
77.27
89.35
90.06
Appendix
Table 25: Frozen-factor controls, reported as retrospective accuracy (%). Full B applies both polar factors and normalizes each branch separately. Common norm. uses the same B but normalizes only after summing the two transformed branches. All maps and explicit fusion weights are fixed.
Backbone
Mean wv
Corrected
Introduced
AnyTouch
51.46%
0
5
Appendix
Table 26: Coefficients relative to unnormalized branches and effects of separate branch normalization on the same 704 observations. Corrected and Introduced count errors corrected and introduced relative to the common-normalization control in Table 25 .
Touch supplies the physical grounding needed to perceive intrinsic material properties, such as friction and compliance, that vision alone often cannot resolve. Recent efforts for equipping multimodal LLMs with this tactile sense, however, expose a zero-sum trade-off: the limited parameter budget of compact models forces a choice between acquiring the new sensory modality and preserving the established vision-language reasoning. We present Splash, a mask-isolated tactile alignment learning framework for MLLMs. Splash quantifies the significance of each pretrained parameter, and partitions the parameter space into a dormant and critical subspace. While the frozen critical subspace acts as a stable anchor to safeguard general visual knowledge, Splash updates the isolated dormant subspace to internalize tactile alignment towards LLMs. This selective, non-destructive expansion effectively prevents catastrophic forgetting and ensures non-destructive modality expansion. Extensive experiments show that Splash effectively achieves tactile reasoning without additional inference overhead in the LLM part, demonstrating state-of-the-art performance on visuo-tactile benchmarks, including SSVTP, TVL, and TacQuad, while preserving its original general-purpose capabilities.
Yoonhyung Park, Minji Kim, Sungwon Moon +1
Division of Artificial Intelligence & Software, Ewha Womans University
Vision-language models transfer well in zero-shot settings, but at deployment the visual and textual branches often shift asymmetrically. Under this condition, entropy-based test-time adaptation can sharpen the fused posterior while increasing error, because an unreliable modality may still dominate fusion. We study this failure mode through a majorization view of multimodal posteriors and cast adaptation as a constrained de-mixing problem on the fused prediction. Based on this view, we propose MG-MTTA, which keeps the backbone frozen and updates only a lightweight gate or adapter. The objective combines fused-posterior entropy minimization with a reliability-aware gate prior built from anchor-based modality consistency and cross-modal conflict. Our analysis gives conditions under which entropy reduction preserves the correct ranking and a threshold that characterizes modality-dominance failure. On the ImageNet-based benchmark, MG-MTTA improves top-1 accuracy from 57.97 to 66.51 under semantics-preserving textual shift and from 21.68 to 26.27 under joint visual-textual shift, while remaining competitive in the visual-only benchmark. These results show that multimodal test-time adaptation should control modality reliability, not just prediction entropy.
Lixian Chen, Yanhui Chen, Junyi Lin
Guangdong University of Technology · Guangzhou, China
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models demonstrate impressive reasoning over visual, semantic, and spatial task variations by leveraging large-scale vision and language pre-training. They remain, however, largely blind to contact forces, which seldom manifest clearly in visual feedback but are central to contact-rich manipulation. Tactile sensing measures these forces directly, but integrating it into VLAs is difficult: tactile data is absent from the large-scale corpora used to pre-train VLAs, so adding it as a new input modality induces a distribution shift that erodes the very pre-training that makes VLAs effective. We propose Tactile Annotation Prompting for Vision-Language-Action models (TAP-VLA), a simple framework that supplies tactile feedback through visual augmentation rather than architectural change. TAP-VLA extracts shear fields from visuo-tactile sensors and overlays them as spatially-grounded vectors onto the multi-view RGB images the policy already consumes, yielding a clear, interpretable tactile cue in the VLA's native observation space. Because the architecture is untouched, the approach requires no tactile pre-training, adds negligible compute, and stays close to the pre-training distribution. Across four contact-rich tasks, TAP-VLA succeeds on 78% of trials, compared to under 50% for vision-only fine-tuning and alternative tactile-fusion baselines -- including tasks where the baselines perform no better than chance.
Mark Van der Merwe, Mohamad Louai Shehab, Jayjun Lee +4
Robotics Department, University of Michigan · Computer Science and Engineering Department, University of Michigan