Counterfactual Modality Attribution (CMA) is proposed, the first framework for quantifying modality-level contributions in MLLMs, providing a principled framework for auditing multimodal foundation models in safety-critical applications.
Abstract
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) increasingly support high-stakes decision making by combining complementary information from images and text. While existing explainability methods identify influential image regions or text tokens, they cannot answer a fundamental question: which modality drives a prediction? Consequently, a model may produce the correct output while relying on the wrong source of evidence, masking shortcut learning and unsafe reasoning. We formulate modality attribution as a complementary explainability objective for multimodal foundation models and propose Counterfactual Modality Attribution (CMA), the first framework for quantifying modality-level contributions in MLLMs. CMA generates image-only, text-only, and joint multimodal counterfactuals using coupled diffusion priors and converts them into principled modality attribution scores through a cooperative game-theoretic formulation based on Shapley values. We evaluate CMA on controlled synthetic benchmarks with known ground-truth modality reliance and on a real-world multimodal clinical dataset. CMA correctly identifies the decision-driving modality in 98% of controlled cases and consistently outperforms baselines, revealing failures of cross-modal reasoning that remain invisible to predictive accuracy alone. Our results establish modality attribution as a complementary dimension of explainability beyond feature attribution, providing a principled framework for auditing multimodal foundation models in safety-critical applications.
GAUGE is proposed, a lightweight counterfactual gating framework for incomplete multimodal classification that outperforms strong baselines across diverse incomplete-input settings and is established as a principled and scalable framework for fine-grained evidence control under modality incompleteness.
Yun Shi, Enshui Yu, Kai-Rui Guo et al.· 0 citations
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly provided with contextual evidence in heterogeneous forms: as a text passage, as a rendered image of the same passage, or as both together. However, it remains unclear how consistently these surface forms are processed, especially when the evidence conflicts with the model's parametric knowledge. We study modality robustness under knowledge conflict across 13 MLLMs and two datasets, and find them far from robust. (1) Contrary to common belief, models favor a context that contradicts parametric knowledge more readily in image form than in text form; (2) when a contradicting text and image are presented together, the preferred modality is essentially arbitrary, varying with input order, model, and dataset. We further demonstrate that this instability has practical consequences: it degrades performance in multimodal RAG and can be exploited by adversarial attacks. To alleviate this brittleness, we examine several simple techniques---prompting, steering, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and direct preference optimization; the majority prove ineffective, whereas SFT achieves moderate success. We therefore call for greater awareness of this inconsistency and argue that it is fundamental, demanding attention at multiple training stages.
This survey organizes the literature on uncertainty-aware MLLMs around a decision-centered framework: uncertainty sources give rise to observable signals, signals must be calibrated or controlled for risk, and calibrated uncertainty should determine the system action.
Modality Subspace Activation (MSA) is proposed, a training-free inference-time framework that uses Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) to estimate modal activation strengths and dynamically balances modal projections in the last hidden state, effectively restoring CMS across benchmarks.
Hongbo Jiang, Jie Li, Yunhang Shen et al.· 0 citations
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can assign similar confidence to answers that fail for different reasons. We propose HalluPrism, a behavioral diagnostic that re-runs an answer after visual degradation, blank-image replacement, and grounding or relation checks. These targeted probes yield a signature over visual-perturbation sensitivity (V ), image-removal confidence retention (L), and grounding/relation-probe instability (A). Across 58K+ examples from four benchmarks and four MLLMs, image-removal confidence retention is most prevalent, while grounding/relation-probe instability better separates failure families. Only 18 of 48 source-target checks are diagonally aligned, so the coordinates should be interpreted jointly rather than as independent causal sources. With the dataset fixed, the joint signature improves failure-family AUROC from 0.634 to 0.769 on HallusionBench and from 0.707 to 0.817 on VizWiz, with smaller gains on POPE and VSR. In pooled XGBoost analysis, AUROC rises from 0.78 with scalar confidence to 0.95 with (V, L, A) and 0.97 when confidence is added. The same signature does not automatically improve correctness ranking. The three tested direct scalarizations can harm it. These results separate failure diagnosis from abstention scoring: multimodal uncertainty should characterize failure structure before it is used to decide whether to abstain or correct.
Aman Prakash, Sourish Dasgupta, Tanmoy Chakraborty· 0 citations
OPD-V is introduced, a visual OPSD paradigm that instantiates privileged information through the Positive Teacher and Negative Teacher that consistently improves reasoning performance while reducing training cost.
Aniri, Jinhe Bi, Peng Liao et al.· 2 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
