Towards Good Practices for Missing Modality Robust Action Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard multi-modal models assume the use of the same modalities in training and inference stages. However, in practice, the environment in which multi-modal models operate may not satisfy such assumption. As such, their performances degrade drastically if any modality is missing in the inference stage. We ask: how can we train a model that is robust to missing modalities? This paper seeks a set of good practices for multi-modal action recognition, with a particular interest in circumstances where some modalities are not available at an inference time. First, we show how to effectively regularize the model during training (e.g., data augmentation). Second, we investigate on fusion methods for robustness to missing modalities: we find that transformer-based fusion shows better robustness for missing modality than summation or concatenation. Third, we propose a simple modular network, ActionMAE, which learns missing modality predictive coding by randomly dropping modality features and tries to reconstruct them with the remaining modality features. Coupling these good practices, we build a model that is not only effective in multi-modal action recognition but also robust to modality missing. Our model achieves the state-of-the-arts on multiple benchmarks and maintains competitive performances even in missing modality scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".