AI & ML
Good Scores, Bad Data: A Metric for Multimodal Coherence
arXiv cs.IR0 views
arXiv:2603.25924v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multimodal AI systems are evaluated by downstream task accuracy, but high accuracy does not mean the underlying data is coherent. A model can score well on Visual Question Answering (VQA) while its inputs contradict each other. We introduce the Multimodal Coherence Score (MCS), a metric that evaluates fusion quality independent of any downstream model. MCS decomposes coherence into four dimensions, identity, spatial, semantic, and decision, with weights learned via Nelder-Mead optimization. We evaluate on 1,000 Visual Genome images using DETR, CLIP, and ViLT, and validate on 150 COCO images with no retraining. Across three fusion architectures, MCS discriminates quality with higher sensitivity than task accuracy alone (Spearman rho = 0.093 vs. 0.071). Perturbation experiments confirm each dimension responds independently to its failure mode with zero cross-talk. MCS is lightweight, requires no human annotation, and tells you not just that something broke, but what broke.
Source:https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25924PreviousImproving the Performance of Compressed Transformers with Post-Hoc Embedding AlignmentNextFinding Change in Satellite Archives from Text: How to Combine Before-and-After Images Efficiently
Related posts
7.9% to 48.1%: LLM rewrote Qwen weights, no training
0dev.to
Spousal Open Work Permits in Canada: Who Qualifies in 2026 and What to Prepare
0dev.to
Reading ingredient lists from phone photos: a crop bug, a model bench, and why the AI never gives the verdict
0dev.to
Edital exige guardrail
0dev.to
Convert an SVG to a PNG in the Browser, Without Uploading the File
0dev.to
Generative Simulation Benchmarking for planetary geology survey missions for extreme data sparsity scenarios
0dev.to