REVIEW 2 cited by
MM-SHAP: A Performance-agnostic Metric for Measuring Multimodal Contributions in Vision and Language Models & Tasks
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Vision and language models (VL) are known to exploit unrobust indicators in individual modalities (e.g., introduced by distributional biases) instead of focusing on relevant information in each modality. That a unimodal model achieves similar accuracy on a VL task to a multimodal one, indicates that so-called unimodal collapse occurred. However, accuracy-based tests fail to detect e.g., when the model prediction is wrong, while the model used relevant information from a modality. Instead, we propose MM-SHAP, a performance-agnostic multimodality score based on Shapley values that reliably quantifies in which proportions a multimodal model uses individual modalities. We apply MM-SHAP in two ways: (1) to compare models for their average degree of multimodality, and (2) to measure for individual models the contribution of individual modalities for different tasks and datasets. Experiments with six VL models -- LXMERT, CLIP and four ALBEF variants -- on four VL tasks highlight that unimodal collapse can occur to different degrees and in different directions, contradicting the wide-spread assumption that unimodal collapse is one-sided. Based on our results, we recommend MM-SHAP for analysing multimodal tasks, to diagnose and guide progress towards multimodal integration. Code available at \url{https://github.com/Heidelberg-NLP/MM-SHAP}.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Decoding the Multimodal Maze: A Systematic Review on the Adoption of Explainability in Multimodal Attention-based Models
A systematic review of 55 papers finds explainability for multimodal attention-based models is dominated by attention-weight visualizations, while evaluation remains mostly qualitative and non-standardized.
-
On the Risk of Misleading Reports: Diagnosing Textual Biases in Multimodal Clinical AI
A new perturbation test shows that medical vision-language models rely more on clinical text than on images, with calibration errors growing when text conflicts with the image.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.