Towards Multimodal Open Set Recognition
Open Set Recognition;Multimodal Fusion;Classification
Yes
No ethics review needed.
(1). Could you elaborate further on the causes of the fusion degradation phenomenon and its relationship with the OSR task?

(2). Table 1 only compares the results of single models and simple fusion methods. Could you include a comparison with additional multimodal methods for further analysis?

(3). I recommend including a chapter index for each section in the appendix within the main text, such as detailed definitions of $g_I$ and $g_L$.
(1). This paper introduces a new task, Multimodal Open Set Recognition (MMOSR), which is more practical compared to the traditional OSR setting.

(2). The paper identifies that combining traditional OSR methods with multimodal fusion leads to fusion degradation and designs a network capable of achieving comprehensive and informative representations.
The paper tackles the challenge of OSR within multimodal settings. Traditional OSR models frequently encounter difficulties in accurately identifying unknown samples when multiple modalities are involved. To address this, the authors introduce a multimodal recognition network (MRN) aimed at enhancing OSR performance across diverse datasets. Experiments are used to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method.
(1). This paper illustrates the issue of fusion degradation after modality fusion using only visualization in Figure 2, lacking theoretical analysis and proof.

(2). The proposed MRN framework lacks novelty, as it merely integrates existing methods, i.e., Cross Attention and MOE, without substantial innovation.

(3). Compared to existing multimodal fusion methods (e.g. MLA), the improvements in various OSR task metrics presented in this paper are not sufficiently significant.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
See in weaknesses
(1)MMOSR fills a gap in handling multimodal data for open set recognition.
(2)The MRN effectively addresses fusion degradation through its dual fusion strategies.
(3)Comprehensive Evaluation: The paper provides thorough experimental validation across multiple datasets and scenarios, demonstrating the robustness and superiority of MRN.
The paper introduces Multimodal Open Set Recognition (MMOSR), extending the concept of Open Set Recognition (OSR) to multimodal data, which includes tasks that require processing multiple types of data simultaneously (e.g., image-text, audio-visual). The authors identify a key challenge in MMOSR: fusion degradation, where simply combining multimodal fusion methods with OSR leads to overly compact representations that hinder the model's ability to discriminate unknown samples.
(1) There is another works claiming the importance of the multimodal open-set learning.  Could the author talk about the difference between this work and the reference [1]?
(2) We can find some improvement comparing the visualizations from this work and existing works on the dataset Food-101 (Fig. 2 & Fig. 6). However, the performance in  Flower-102 seems not good.  Could the author show some results of visualizations of existing methods?
(3)  Could the author analyze the performance on CREMA-D which is not good.




[1] Towards Multimodal Open-Set Domain Generalization and Adaptation through Self-supervision
Yes
No ethics review needed.
Please refer to weakness. Moreover, my main concern is the paper's limited contribution and novelty (considering the ICLR's quality). I will also read other reviewer's comments before making my final decision (my rating is for the current status of the paper).
The paper is easy to follow.
The empirical results show satisfactory improvements on benchmark datasets.
The idea of mutually enhanced fusion is intuitive and well-motivated.
The paper extends traditional open set recognition (OSR) to multimodal data. The paper identifies that current single-modal OSR, fail in multimodal scenarios because of "fusion degradation"—a challenge where the fusion of multiple modalities compresses the representation space too tightly, limiting the model's ability to recognize unknown samples. To address this, the authors propose a Multimodal Representation Reactivation Network (MRN), which reactivates and enhances multimodal representations. The paper demonstrates that MRN achieves better performance than existing methods in terms of accuracy and UROC in various datasets.
- Experiment in Table 1: The evaluation in Table 1 appears to be somewhat unfair. Using simple summation to fuse representations from different modalities may not be effective, as the embeddings from two distinct models (modalities) are not necessarily aligned. It would be useful to see results with a simple concatenation of embedding vectors as an alternative.

 - Line 240: The writing style could be improved, particularly in the phrase "modality 1 data x_1."

 mutually enhanced fusion - A major writing issue is that while the notation is presented for two modalities for clarity, it is not clear how the "mutually enhanced fusion" module would generalize when there are more than two modalities. Pairwise enhancement for an arbitrary number of modalities may be inefficient and needs further clarification.

 - Addition of Gaussian Noise (Line 286): It is unclear how adding Gaussian noise with zero mean and unit variance improves robustness. More explanation would help in understanding the rationale behind this choice. (no theoretical or experimental support or reference )

- Results in Figures 4 and 5: The results show that the performance is not sensitive to the number of experts. It would be insightful to see the distribution of weights assigned to each expert, to determine if the model is selectively using experts or simply averaging across them. Additionally, it is important to visualize that no single expert is consistently dominant across different scenarios.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
See Weaknesses, particularly points 1 and 2.
+ The proposed framework is straightforward and should be relatively easy to implement.
+ The experimental evaluation procedure is designed correctly. Particularly, networks seem to be trained on the known classes only, hopefully without pre-training on external datasets that might include the test classes.
+ Results show improved performances over recent baselines.
+ Ablation studies show the contributions of all components.
The paper addresses the issue of multi-modal (MM) open-set recognition (OSR).
The authors first discuss simplistic MM fusion techniques and show that they do not improve closed-set ACCuracy or out-of-distribution detection AUROC.
To solve this, they propose to use cross-attention between features of different modalities, and a mixture-of-experts system to further improve performance.
Experiments on various bi-modal datasets show improved performance for the proposed method as compared to related methods.
While in general the results indicate reasonable improvements, there are some points that need to be resolved before the paper is of sufficient quality to be published:

1. The structure of the document and the description of the proposed method would enjoy improvements:

   a) The organization of the paper can be improved. It is not clear why results are presented in section 3, before discussing details of the method and the evaluation?

   b) For the preliminary experiments in section 3.2, what are the models used to extract features for text and image modalities? What does it exactly mean to "add[ing] representations from both modalities"? If this is this simple element-wise addition, why would this be a reasonable fusion strategy? Why not using score fusion techniques which are typically better suited for MM fusion? What are the two variations Fusion and Fusion-OSR reported in table 1?

   c) Section 4.3 proposes a specific evaluation procedure, but such a procedure is not used in their evaluation. Why do the authors talk about such standard evaluation?

   d) There are many results in table 3 that are neither described nor discussed in the text. Particularly, the final block appears to show variations of the proposed method, which are explained nowhere.

   e) The role of the visualizations in figures 7 and 12 is unclear. What do the authors expect to see? Are these representations for known or unknown samples? To me, all visualizations highlight reasonable locations, I cannot follow the conclusion drawn by the authors that "representations of MRN are more accurate and comprehensive than the baseline". The authors should consider sacrificing these plots (or move all of them to the supplemental) and use the space to discuss their results better.

   f) There is quite a lot of additional information in the appendix, which is not mentioned anywhere in the main paper. The authors should add indications into the main text, and discuss why we see such supplemental material.

   g) In algorithm 1 (in the supplemental material), it is not clear which parameters are included into the set \theta. Specifically, are the parameters of the encoder networks also included in these parameters, or are pre-trained networks used?


2. The evaluation needs to be improved:

   a) The conclusions drawn for the initial experiments are solely valid for the applied OSR and MM methods and might not transfer to other methods. The authors need to acknowledge this and tone down claims such as "open space risk [...] cannot be resolved by simply integrating OSR methods".

   b) Evaluation is based on ACC, AUROC and AUOSCR, all of which are mainly influenced by improved closed-set classification. This is perfectly shown in figures 4 and 5 where AUROC and OSCR values mostly correlate with ACC. A better evaluation would plot OSCR curves [Dhamija2018] which incorporate closed- and open-set evaluation into a single curve. Also, OpenAUC (Wang et al., 2022) discusses why ACC and AUROC are not good metrics to evaluate OSR.

   c) The employed Max-probability baseline OSR technique is very simplistic and not SOTA. For a similarly simply, but much more effective, OSR technique, the authors should rather use the MaxLogits technique [Hendrycks2022].

   d) The ablation study in section 5.3.2 only varies the number of experts in between 10 and 20. It misses showing that the module itself provides improvements over not at all using a mixture of experts. Such results are only presented in the supplemental material.

   e) The visualization of high-dimensional features is done via t-SNE, which has been superseded by UMAP. The authors should consider to use UMAP as well. Representations are not "downscaled", but "dimension-reduced".


3. The mathematical details need to be improved:

   a) In (1), why is the same value z_2 input to function C_1 twice?

   b) Above (2), a value \epsilon is defined, but not used in (2).

   c) Below (2), it is mentioned that the logits f are the output of Softmax, while by definition logits are the inputs to Softmax.

   d) In (3), g_I and g_L are used without providing equations on how these values are computed.

   e) The number of experts is called E in section 4.2.2 and N in section 5.2.


[Dhamija2018] A. R. Dhamija, M. Gunther, and T. E. Boult, "Reducing network agnostophobia," in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2018.

[Hendrycks2022] D. Hendrycks et al., "Scaling Out-of-Distribution Detection for Real-World Settings," in International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2022.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
see weakness
1.	This paper addresses the open set recognition problem for multimodal data, which can solve more issues in the fields of multimodal and open set recognition.
2.	When performing modality fusion, it identifies the issue of fusion degradation and designs a module to eliminate it.
This paper raises the problem that most research on open set recognition is monomodal, introducing MMOSR (multi-modal open set recognition), and points out that the use of other multi-modal methods may lead to fusion degradation, thus introducing MRN, designing a mutually enhancing fusion module to enable full interaction between different modalities.
1.	The model is overly simplistic. The innovative point of the MRN's adaptive fusion module merely employs an expert mixture model.
2.	When dealing with reject samples (belonging to unknown classes), the method uses softmax values less than the parameter τ, but does not provide a basis for selecting this parameter. If it is a hyperparameter, how was it determined? If it is a learnable parameter, how is it learned?
3.	In the experimental setup section, the experimental environment and other parameters are not specified.
4.	In the experimental results, for the open-set multimodal tasks proposed in this paper, the advantages of CSSR-MRN are not significant for most datasets.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. How about the impact of the Gaussian nosie \epslion in Eq. 2 to the final performance? since you claim this is for improving robustness and preventing overfitting. But this is not discussed in experiments.
1. Exploring multimodal fusion for OSR is interesting and approaches practical scenarios.
2. The proposal of fusion degradation problem sounds good.
This submission proposes a multi-modal open-set recognition paradigm (MMOSR) by exending OSR to more practical scenarios with multiple modalities. To exploit multi-modal data, the proposed method focus on multi-modal fusion for OSR, and propose a multimodal representation reactivation network to alleviate fusion degradation. Specifically, two cross-attention modules are deployed and mixure of experts is considered for adaptive fusion. Experiments show the effect.
1. There lacks clear and sufficient analysis about the fusion degradation challenge. In-depth insights about this challenge should be discussed and confirmed.
2. The technical novelty is limited. From the technical idea of the multimodal fusion, I could not learn more about new knowledge. Cross-attention and mixure of experts are very general strategies proved to be effective. However, the proposed method is simple application of such techniques. Therefore, it is unclear why and how these techniques overcome the challenge of fusion degradation.
3. Figure 1 may have no useful information about the proposed method, and even this figure is removed.
4. As figure 3 shows, only two modalities are considered in method design, which may not be general. 
5. MoE will cause more computation, which should be taken into account in method selection.
We propose a new multimodal open set recognition (MMOSR) task, extending OSR to multimodal scenarios. To address the challenge of MMOSR, we introduce the multimodal representation reactivation network (MRN), achieving superior MMOSR performance.
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024towards,
title={Towards Multimodal Open Set Recognition},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=slZZnzlITo},
note={under review}
}
Open set recognition (OSR) requires deep learning models to identify unknown samples while recognizing known ones. Existing OSR studies focus on single-modal data but merely discuss how to handle multimodal data. In this paper, we propose a new task multimodal open set recognition (MMOSR), extending OSR to more practical scenarios. First, we analyze the necessity of MMOSR and provide insights into the task. We find that simply combining OSR and multimodal fusion methods faces the challenge of fusion degradation. The main reason is that the OSR regularization constrains the fused representations to be excessively compact, leading to deactivated and limited representations. We design the multimodal representation reactivation network (MRN) to alleviate fusion degradation by reactivating suppressed representations. MRN includes the mutually enhanced fusion for enhancing representations and performing cross-modal interaction, and the adaptive fusion for capturing multiple informative representations and outputting the adaptively fused prediction. Thus, the proposed method obtains effective and comprehensive multimodal representations and addresses the challenge of fusion degradation. Finally, extensive experiments on various settings demonstrate that the proposed method is superior to existing methods by up to 5.23\% on OSCR.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
Open Set Recognition Multimodal Fusion Classification
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/8ea4cf096552789d2ab39f5a65acb948216c1c45.pdf
applications to computer vision, audio, language, and other modalities
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
/attachment/6b2787fecabef15b3f1ed44cc6a0b72b7d0b67ee.zip
Towards Multimodal Open Set Recognition
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission