Papers › Deciphering Cross-Modal Alignment in Large Vision-Language Models with Modality...
Deciphering Cross-Modal Alignment in Large Vision-Language Models with Modality Integration Rate
Qidong Huang, Xiaoyi Dong, Pan Zhang, Yuhang Zang, Yuhang Cao, Jiaqi Wang, Dahua Lin, Weiming Zhang, Nenghai Yu
We present the Modality Integration Rate (MIR), an effective, robust, and generalized metric to indicate the multi-modal pre-training quality of Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs). Large-scale pre-training plays a critical role in building capable LVLMs, while evaluating its training quality without the costly supervised fine-tuning stage is under-explored. Loss, perplexity, and in-context evaluation results are commonly used pre-training metrics for Large Language Models (LLMs), while we observed that these metrics are less indicative when aligning a well-trained LLM with a new modality. Due to the lack of proper metrics, the research of LVLMs in the critical pre-training stage is hindered greatly, including the training data choice, efficient module design, etc. In this paper, we propose evaluating the pre-training quality from the inter-modal distribution distance perspective and present MIR, the Modality Integration Rate, which is 1) \textbf{Effective} to represent the pre-training quality and show a positive relation with the benchmark performance after supervised fine-tuning. 2) \textbf{Robust} toward different training/evaluation data. 3) \textbf{Generalize} across training configurations and architecture choices. We conduct a series of pre-training experiments to explore the effectiveness of MIR and observe satisfactory results that MIR is indicative about training data selection, training strategy schedule, and model architecture design to get better pre-training results. We hope MIR could be a helpful metric for building capable LVLMs and inspire the following research about modality alignment in different areas. Our code is at: https://github.com/shikiw/Modality-Integration-Rate.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2410.07167")
Code
Syntology Ran 12 of 12 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · violated contract; 3 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran · fixture could not drive it; 6 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 12 samples from 1 repository, 12 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
12 samples harvested; 12 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 12 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from shikiw/modality-integration-rate. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
708dccbfcaada399 · report
7911bb349578d219 · report
20e4f665698a3d18 · report
7e03b180fa317c9a · report
42a46570620cd9fa · report
bae18947b56f2be1 · report
9b3c1cb391672ccb · report
65698a07f2e8f8c7 · report
b38b88440cec1aa1 · report
468eedeba67f1b00 · report
3999ff487573f32c · report
076c252c52cbb161 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual Question Answering | MM-Vet | Mini-Gemini (+MoCa) | GPT-4 score | 42.9 | #97 of 231 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Visual Question Answering | MM-Vet | LLaVA-v1.5 (+MoCa) | GPT-4 score | 32.2 | #183 of 231 | 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.
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