Papers › Alternating Gradient Descent and Mixture-of-Experts for Integrated Multimodal Perception
Alternating Gradient Descent and Mixture-of-Experts for Integrated Multimodal Perception
Hassan Akbari, Dan Kondratyuk, Yin Cui, Rachel Hornung, Huisheng Wang, Hartwig Adam
We present Integrated Multimodal Perception (IMP), a simple and scalable multimodal multi-task training and modeling approach. IMP integrates multimodal inputs including image, video, text, and audio into a single Transformer encoder with minimal modality-specific components. IMP makes use of a novel design that combines Alternating Gradient Descent (AGD) and Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) for efficient model and task scaling. We conduct extensive empirical studies and reveal the following key insights: 1) Performing gradient descent updates by alternating on diverse modalities, loss functions, and tasks, with varying input resolutions, efficiently improves the model. 2) Sparsification with MoE on a single modality-agnostic encoder substantially improves the performance, outperforming dense models that use modality-specific encoders or additional fusion layers and greatly mitigates the conflicts between modalities. IMP achieves competitive performance on a wide range of downstream tasks including video classification, image classification, image-text, and video-text retrieval. Most notably, we train a sparse IMP-MoE-L variant focusing on video tasks that achieves new state-of-the-art in zero-shot video classification: 77.0% on Kinetics-400, 76.8% on Kinetics-600, and 68.3% on Kinetics-700, improving the previous state-of-the-art by +5%, +6.7%, and +5.8%, respectively, while using only 15% of their total training computational cost.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
No code repository is listed for this paper in the archive or in Syntology's graph.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero-Shot Action Recognition | HMDB51 | IMP-MoE-L | Top-1 Accuracy | 59.1 | #5 of 29 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Zero-Shot Action Recognition | Kinetics | IMP-MoE-L | Top-1 Accuracy | 76.8 | #2 of 20 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Zero-Shot Action Recognition | UCF101 | IMP-MoE-L | Top-1 Accuracy | 91.5 | #2 of 35 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Zero-Shot Transfer Image Classification | ImageNet | IMP-MoE-L | Accuracy (Private) | 83.9 | #8 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections