arxiv: 2605.01219 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-02 · 💻 cs.MM · cs.CV· cs.SD· eess.IV

Recognition: unknown

Multimodal Confidence Modeling in Audio-Visual Quality Assessment

Mayesha Maliha R. Mithila , Mylene C.Q. Farias

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.MM cs.CVcs.SDeess.IV

keywords audio-visual quality assessmentmultimodal confidenceconfidence-guided fusionasymmetric distortionsmean opinion scoresaudio-visual mixercross-modal attention

0 comments

The pith

Multimodal confidence modeling lets AV quality metrics suppress unreliable audio or video signals and better match human ratings.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces MCM-AVQA, a framework that estimates separate confidence scores for the audio and visual streams in a video clip. These scores then control a dedicated Audio-Visual Mixer that uses channel attention to let high-confidence features dominate cross-modal fusion while down-weighting degraded ones. The approach is motivated by real streaming conditions where one modality can be heavily distorted while the other remains clean. If the method works, quality predictions become both more accurate against human mean opinion scores and easier to interpret by revealing which modality is driving the score at any moment.

Core claim

MCM-AVQA explicitly estimates modality-specific confidence and injects it into a confidence-guided Audio-Visual Mixer that performs frame-level channel attention to gate fusion, allowing high-confidence streams to dominate while unreliable inputs are suppressed and temporal degradation patterns are preserved; experiments on multiple AVQA benchmarks show improved correlation with human mean opinion scores and more interpretable behavior under asymmetric distortions.

What carries the argument

The Audio-Visual Mixer, which applies frame-level confidence-guided channel attention to modulate feature interaction between audio and visual streams.

If this is right

Fusion decisions become interpretable because the model can indicate which modality it is trusting at each frame.
Temporal patterns of degradation are preserved rather than averaged away.
Performance gains appear specifically on test sets that contain real-world asymmetric audio-visual distortions.
The same confidence scores can be inspected to diagnose why a clip receives a particular quality rating.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Streaming platforms could use the per-modality confidence outputs to trigger automatic fallback to the cleaner channel or to alert users.
The same gating idea could be tested in other multimodal tasks such as audiovisual speech recognition or emotion detection under uneven noise.
If the confidence estimators generalize, they might reduce the need for perfectly synchronized clean reference signals during training.
A natural next measurement would be whether the confidence scores themselves correlate with human judgments of which modality is more impaired.

Load-bearing premise

The visual and audio confidence estimators can correctly detect which modality is unreliable using only the distorted input, and the resulting gating will not create new fusion errors that cancel the gains.

What would settle it

On an AVQA benchmark containing controlled asymmetric distortions, the full MCM-AVQA model shows no statistically significant rise in Spearman or Pearson correlation with mean opinion scores compared with an ablated version that removes the confidence modules and performs uniform fusion.

read the original abstract

Audio-visual quality assessment (AVQA) is essential for streaming, teleconferencing, and immersive media. In realistic streaming scenarios, distortions are often asymmetric, where one modality may be severely degraded while the other remains clean. Still, most contemporary AVQA metrics treat audio and video as equally reliable, causing confidence-unaware fusion to emphasize unreliable signals. This paper proposes MCM-AVQA, a multimodal confidence-aware AVQA framework that explicitly estimates modality-specific confidence and injects it into a dedicated audio-visual mixer for cross-modal attention. The Audio-Visual Mixer utilizes frame-level, confidence-guided channel attention to gate fusion, modulating feature interaction between modalities so that high-confidence streams dominate while unreliable inputs are suppressed, preserving temporal degradation patterns. A multi-head visual confidence estimator turns frame-level artifact probabilities into temporally smoothed, clip-level visual confidence scores, while an audio confidence module derives confidence from speech-quality cues without requiring a clean reference. Experiments on multiple AVQA benchmarks show that MCM-AVQA, and specifically its confidence-guided Audio-Visual Mixer, improve correlation with human mean opinion scores and yield more interpretable behavior under real-world asymmetric audio-visual distortions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper proposes a confidence-guided mixer for AVQA to handle asymmetric distortions, but offers no direct validation that the confidence scores are accurate or responsible for any gains.

read the letter

The main thing here is a framework called MCM-AVQA that estimates separate confidence for audio and video, then uses those scores to gate features in an Audio-Visual Mixer with channel attention. The goal is to let the cleaner modality dominate when distortions hit one side harder than the other, which is a real issue in streaming and calls. They describe a multi-head visual estimator that turns frame artifact probabilities into clip-level scores and a reference-free audio module based on speech quality cues. That architecture is the concrete new piece; prior AVQA work mostly fuses modalities without this explicit reliability check. It does a decent job laying out why equal-weight fusion can fail on asymmetric cases and how the mixer preserves temporal patterns while suppressing bad streams. The modular split between confidence estimation and fusion is clean on paper and could be useful for others building similar systems. The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test flagged: there is no reported check on whether the confidence modules actually track true per-modality reliability. No ablation with oracle confidence, no correlation of estimated scores against ground-truth modality MOS on asymmetric subsets, and no error analysis showing the mixer behaves differently when confidence is accurate versus noisy. The abstract claims better MOS correlation on benchmarks, but without numbers, baselines, or those targeted tests it is impossible to tell if the improvement comes from the confidence guidance or just from adding the mixer and extra heads. The experiments are described at a high level only. This paper is for researchers already working on audio-visual quality metrics who want a concrete fusion module to try. A reader focused on attention-based multimodal models might pick up the gating idea, but anyone expecting strong empirical proof that the confidence part works will be disappointed. It deserves peer review because the problem is practical, the design is straightforward to implement and test, and the missing validation steps are fixable with standard ablations rather than a fundamental flaw.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MCM-AVQA, a multimodal confidence-aware framework for audio-visual quality assessment. It includes a multi-head visual confidence estimator that converts frame-level artifact probabilities into temporally smoothed clip-level scores, an audio confidence module that derives scores from speech-quality cues without a clean reference, and a dedicated Audio-Visual Mixer that applies confidence-guided channel attention to gate cross-modal fusion. The central claim is that this explicitly models modality reliability to suppress unreliable streams under asymmetric distortions, yielding higher correlation with human mean opinion scores and more interpretable behavior on multiple AVQA benchmarks.

Significance. If the confidence modules accurately identify per-modality reliability, the approach could improve robustness of AVQA metrics in practical streaming and teleconferencing scenarios where distortions are often asymmetric. The confidence-guided mixer design offers a concrete mechanism for interpretable multimodal fusion that prior equal-treatment methods lack.

major comments (1)

[Experiments section] The abstract states that experiments on multiple benchmarks show improved correlation with human MOS due to the confidence-guided Audio-Visual Mixer, yet no quantitative results, baseline comparisons, error bars, or validation of the confidence scores (such as correlation against per-modality ground-truth MOS or ablation with oracle confidence on asymmetric subsets) are provided. This is load-bearing for the central claim, because without evidence that the multi-head visual estimator and audio module correctly detect unreliable modalities, any reported gains could arise from the mixer architecture or training procedure rather than the confidence guidance.

minor comments (2)

The description of temporal smoothing in the multi-head visual confidence estimator would benefit from an explicit equation or pseudocode to support reproducibility.
Notation for the channel attention weights in the Audio-Visual Mixer could be clarified with a diagram or additional equations to distinguish it from standard attention mechanisms.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the opportunity to clarify our work. We address the single major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the experimental validation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Experiments section] The abstract states that experiments on multiple benchmarks show improved correlation with human MOS due to the confidence-guided Audio-Visual Mixer, yet no quantitative results, baseline comparisons, error bars, or validation of the confidence scores (such as correlation against per-modality ground-truth MOS or ablation with oracle confidence on asymmetric subsets) are provided. This is load-bearing for the central claim, because without evidence that the multi-head visual estimator and audio module correctly detect unreliable modalities, any reported gains could arise from the mixer architecture or training procedure rather than the confidence guidance.

Authors: We agree that the current manuscript version does not include sufficient quantitative details to fully substantiate the central claim. The abstract summarizes the outcomes, but the experiments section lacks the requested tables, baseline comparisons, error bars, per-modality confidence validation, and targeted ablations on asymmetric subsets. To address this, we will expand the experiments section with: (1) full correlation results (PLCC, SRCC, KRCC) against human MOS on all benchmarks, including comparisons to recent AVQA baselines; (2) error bars from multiple runs; (3) direct evaluation of the visual and audio confidence modules via correlation with available per-modality quality annotations; and (4) oracle-confidence ablations restricted to asymmetric-distortion subsets to isolate the contribution of the guidance mechanism. These additions will demonstrate that the gains derive specifically from the confidence modeling rather than the mixer alone. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: new framework with independent empirical validation

full rationale

The paper proposes MCM-AVQA as a novel architecture comprising a multi-head visual confidence estimator (from frame-level artifact probabilities) and an audio confidence module (from speech-quality cues), fused via a confidence-guided Audio-Visual Mixer. No equations, derivations, or parameter-fitting steps are described that reduce the claimed MOS correlation gains to a self-referential definition, a fitted input renamed as prediction, or a self-citation chain. The central claims rest on experimental results across AVQA benchmarks rather than any load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported from prior author work. This matches the reader's assessment that the framework is self-contained with independent components.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is limited to explicitly stated domain assumptions. No free parameters or invented physical entities are described.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Distortions in realistic streaming scenarios are often asymmetric, with one modality severely degraded while the other remains clean.
Directly stated in the abstract as the core motivation for confidence-aware fusion.

invented entities (2)

MCM-AVQA framework no independent evidence
purpose: Multimodal confidence-aware audio-visual quality assessment system
New proposed end-to-end framework
Audio-Visual Mixer no independent evidence
purpose: Component that performs confidence-guided channel attention for cross-modal fusion
Core novel module for gating unreliable signals

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5510 in / 1393 out tokens · 66756 ms · 2026-05-10T15:15:43.179541+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Under realistic operating conditions, however, audiovisual signals are often subject to 0© 2026 IEEE

INTRODUCTION Audio-visual quality assessment (A VQA) is essential for streaming, teleconferencing, and immersive media because it allows for adaptive streaming and large-scale quality monitor- ing without human intervention [1]. Under realistic operating conditions, however, audiovisual signals are often subject to 0© 2026 IEEE. Personal use of this mater...

2026
[2]

learns a shared latent embedding space via a two-stage au- toencoder framework; however, it lacks explicit cross-modal interaction mechanisms and does not enforce modality re- liability under asymmetric degradations. Attention-guided A VQA architectures [4] integrate visual saliency mechanisms with late fusion, where attention weights are learned implic- ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[3]

METHODOLOGY MCM-A VQA incorporates modality-specific confidence into the cross-modal attention and fusion method. Unlike task- specific architectures such as A VSegFormer [6] (segmenta- tion with symmetric channel-attention mixers) or MMAu- dio [7] (video-to-audio generation with joint-attention trans- formers), our approach uses cross-modal attention wit...
[4]

These databases contain diverse audio-visual content and distortions, each with subjective mean opinion scores (MOS)

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS We evaluate MCM-A VQA on three A VQA datasets: UnB-A V [17], UnB-A VQ[18] and LIVE-SJTU[2]. These databases contain diverse audio-visual content and distortions, each with subjective mean opinion scores (MOS). Performance is measured by the Pearson Linear Correlation Coefficient (PLCC) and Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient (...
[5]

The naive late-fusion baseline (A VM-, VCM-, ACM-) has PLCC/SROCC values of 0.907/0.894 on UnB-A VQ and 0.916/0.896 on LIVE-SJTU

ABLATION STUDIES Table 3 shows how different module combinations affect PLCC and SROCC on UnB-A VQ and LIVE-SJTU. The naive late-fusion baseline (A VM-, VCM-, ACM-) has PLCC/SROCC values of 0.907/0.894 on UnB-A VQ and 0.916/0.896 on LIVE-SJTU. Enabling merely the Audio-Visual Mixer with- out the confidence modules (A VM+, VCM-, and ACM-) improves PLCC to ...
[6]

MCM-A VQA adapts to asym- metric distortion, where one modality is heavily degraded and the other remains reliable

CONCLUSION This study presents MCM-A VQA, a confidence-aware audio- visual quality assessment framework that first models modality- specific confidence, then feeds it into an Audio-Visual Mixer for cross-modal integration. MCM-A VQA adapts to asym- metric distortion, where one modality is heavily degraded and the other remains reliable. Experiments on LIV...
[7]

Audio-visual multime- dia quality assessment: A comprehensive survey,

Zahid Akhtar and Tiago H Falk, “Audio-visual multime- dia quality assessment: A comprehensive survey,”IEEE access, vol. 5, pp. 21090–21117, 2017

2017
[8]

Study of sub- jective and objective quality assessment of audio-visual signals,

Xiongkuo Min, Guangtao Zhai, Jiantao Zhou, My- lene CQ Farias, and Alan Conrad Bovik, “Study of sub- jective and objective quality assessment of audio-visual signals,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 29, pp. 6054–6068, 2020

2020
[9]

Reliability-weighted in- tegration of audiovisual signals can be modulated by top-down attention,

Tim Rohe and Uta Noppeney, “Reliability-weighted in- tegration of audiovisual signals can be modulated by top-down attention,”eneuro, vol. 5, no. 1, 2018

2018
[10]

Attention-guided neural networks for full- reference and no-reference audio-visual quality assess- ment,

Yuqin Cao, Xiongkuo Min, Wei Sun, and Guang- tao Zhai, “Attention-guided neural networks for full- reference and no-reference audio-visual quality assess- ment,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 32, pp. 1882–1896, 2023

2023
[11]

NA ViDAd: A no-reference audio-visual qual- ity metric based on a deep autoencoder,

Helard Martinez, Myl `ene C. Q. Farias, and Andrew Hines, “NA ViDAd: A no-reference audio-visual qual- ity metric based on a deep autoencoder,” inProc. EU- SIPCO. 2019, IEEE

2019
[12]

Avsegformer: Audio-visual segmentation with transformer,

Shengyi Gao, Zhe Chen, Guo Chen, Wenhai Wang, and Tong Lu, “Avsegformer: Audio-visual segmentation with transformer,” inProceedings of the AAAI confer- ence on artificial intelligence, 2024, vol. 38, pp. 12155– 12163

2024
[13]

Mmaudio: Taming multimodal joint training for high- quality video-to-audio synthesis,

Ho Kei Cheng, Masato Ishii, Akio Hayakawa, Takashi Shibuya, Alexander Schwing, and Yuki Mitsufuji, “Mmaudio: Taming multimodal joint training for high- quality video-to-audio synthesis,” inProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 2025, pp. 28901–28911

2025
[14]

Convolutions need registers too: Hvs-inspired dynamic attention for video quality assessment,

Mayesha Maliha Rahman Mithila and Mylene CQ Farias, “Convolutions need registers too: Hvs-inspired dynamic attention for video quality assessment,” inPro- ceedings of the ACM Multimedia Systems Conference 2026, 2026, pp. 37–48

2026
[15]

Mt- dpcqa: A multimodal time-aware learning approach for no-reference dynamic point cloud quality assessment,

Swarna Chakraborty and Mylene CQ Farias, “Mt- dpcqa: A multimodal time-aware learning approach for no-reference dynamic point cloud quality assessment,” inProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Confer- ence on Multimedia, 2025, pp. 7113–7122

2025
[16]

Attend-fusion: Efficient audio-visual fusion for video classification,

Mahrukh Awan, Asmar Nadeem, Muhammad Junaid Awan, Armin Mustafa, and Syed Sameed Husain, “Attend-fusion: Efficient audio-visual fusion for video classification,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 195–213

2024
[17]

Unqa: Unified no- reference quality assessment for audio, image, video, and audio-visual content,

Yuqin Cao, Xiongkuo Min, Yixuan Gao, Wei Sun, Long Ye, Weisi Lin, and Guangtao Zhai, “Unqa: Unified no- reference quality assessment for audio, image, video, and audio-visual content,”IEEE Transactions on Cir- cuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2025

2025
[18]

A confidence- based late fusion framework for audio-visual biometric identification,

Mohammad Rafiqul Alam, Mohammed Bennamoun, Roberto Togneri, and Ferdous Sohel, “A confidence- based late fusion framework for audio-visual biometric identification,”Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 52, pp. 65–71, 2015

2015
[19]

Mvad: A multiple visual artifact detector for video streaming,

Chen Feng, Duolikun Danier, Fan Zhang, Alex Mackin, Andrew Collins, and David Bull, “Mvad: A multiple visual artifact detector for video streaming,” in2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Com- puter Vision (WACV). IEEE, 2025, pp. 3148–3158

2025
[20]

Scoreq: Speech quality assessment with contrastive re- gression,

Alessandro Ragano, Jan Skoglund, and Andrew Hines, “Scoreq: Speech quality assessment with contrastive re- gression,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 105702–105729, 2024

2024
[21]

Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer us- ing shifted windows,

Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer us- ing shifted windows,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 10012–10022

2021
[22]

Cnn architectures for large-scale audio classification,

Shawn Hershey, Sourish Chaudhuri, Daniel PW Ellis, Jort F Gemmeke, Aren Jansen, R Channing Moore, Manoj Plakal, Devin Platt, Rif A Saurous, Bryan Sey- bold, et al., “Cnn architectures for large-scale audio classification,” in2017 ieee international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (icassp). IEEE, 2017, pp. 131–135

2017
[23]

UnB-A V: An audio-visual database for mul- timedia quality research,

Helard B. Martinez, Andrew Hines, and Myl `ene C. Q. Farias, “UnB-A V: An audio-visual database for mul- timedia quality research,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 56641–56649, 2020

2020
[24]

Full- reference audio-visual video quality metric,

Helard B. Martinez and Myl `ene CQ Farias, “Full- reference audio-visual video quality metric,”Journal of Electronic Imaging, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 061108–061108, 2014

2014
[25]

Study of subjective and objective quality assessment of video,

Kalpana Seshadrinathan, Rajiv Soundararajan, Alan Conrad Bovik, and Lawrence K Cormack, “Study of subjective and objective quality assessment of video,”IEEE transactions on Image Processing, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1427–1441, 2010

2010
[26]

Combining audio and video metrics to assess audio- visual quality,

Helard Becerra Martinez and Myl `ene C. Q. Farias, “Combining audio and video metrics to assess audio- visual quality,”Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 77, no. 21, pp. 28449–28474, 2018

2018
[27]

Deep neural networks for full-reference and no-reference audio-visual quality assessment,

Yuqin Cao, Xiongkuo Min, Wenhan Sun, and Guang- tao Zhai, “Deep neural networks for full-reference and no-reference audio-visual quality assessment,” inPro- ceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Im- age Processing (ICIP), 2021, pp. 1429–1433

2021
[28]

See hear now: is audio-visual qoe now just a fusion of audio and video metrics?,

Helard B Martinez, Andrew Hines, and Myl `ene CQ Farias, “See hear now: is audio-visual qoe now just a fusion of audio and video metrics?,” in2022 14th Inter- national Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experi- ence (QoMEX). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–4

2022