Mutual Information Analysis in Multimodal Learning Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a significant increase in applications of multimodal signal processing and analysis, largely driven by the increased availability of multimodal datasets and the rapid progress in multimodal learning systems. Well-known examples include autonomous vehicles, audiovisual generative systems, vision-language systems, and so on. Such systems integrate multiple signal modalities: text, speech, images, video, LiDAR, etc., to perform various tasks. A key issue for understanding such systems is the relationship between various modalities and how it impacts task performance. In this paper, we employ the concept of mutual information (MI) to gain insight into this issue. Taking advantage of the recent progress in entropy modeling and estimation, we develop a system called InfoMeter to estimate MI between modalities in a multimodal learning system. We then apply InfoMeter to analyze a multimodal 3D object detection system over a large-scale dataset for autonomous driving. Our experiments on this system suggest that a lower MI between modalities is beneficial for detection accuracy. This new insight may facilitate improvements in the development of future multimodal learning systems.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".