Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

MAEA: Multimodal Attribution for Embodied AI

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

arxiv 2307.13850 v1 pith:FTGDUNEE submitted 2023-07-25 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CVcs.RO

MAEA: Multimodal Attribution for Embodied AI

classification cs.LG cs.AIcs.CVcs.RO
keywords attributionsmultimodalpoliciesanalysisattributiondatasetembodiedglobal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Understanding multimodal perception for embodied AI is an open question because such inputs may contain highly complementary as well as redundant information for the task. A relevant direction for multimodal policies is understanding the global trends of each modality at the fusion layer. To this end, we disentangle the attributions for visual, language, and previous action inputs across different policies trained on the ALFRED dataset. Attribution analysis can be utilized to rank and group the failure scenarios, investigate modeling and dataset biases, and critically analyze multimodal EAI policies for robustness and user trust before deployment. We present MAEA, a framework to compute global attributions per modality of any differentiable policy. In addition, we show how attributions enable lower-level behavior analysis in EAI policies for language and visual attributions.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Explicit Reasoning Makes Better Judges: A Systematic Study on Accuracy, Efficiency, and Robustness

    cs.AI 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Thinking LLMs achieve ~10 percentage points higher accuracy than non-thinking ones on RewardBench with under 2x compute overhead, outperforming augmentation strategies that cost over 8x more while also showing better ...