MIDAS: Misalignment-based Data Augmentation Strategy for Imbalanced Multimodal Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multimodal models often over-rely on dominant modalities, failing to achieve optimal performance. While prior work focuses on modifying training objectives or optimization procedures, data-centric solutions remain underexplored. We propose MIDAS, a novel data augmentation strategy that generates misaligned samples with semantically inconsistent cross-modal information, labeled using unimodal confidence scores to compel learning from contradictory signals. However, this confidence-based labeling can still favor the more confident modality. To address this within our misaligned samples, we introduce weak-modality weighting, which dynamically increases the loss weight of the least confident modality, thereby helping the model fully utilize weaker modality. Furthermore, when misaligned features exhibit greater similarity to the aligned features, these misaligned samples pose a greater challenge, thereby enabling the model to better distinguish between classes. To leverage this, we propose hard-sample weighting, which prioritizes such semantically ambiguous misaligned samples. Experiments on multiple multimodal classification benchmarks demonstrate that MIDAS significantly outperforms related baselines in addressing modality imbalance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".