Goto

Collaborating Authors

 integrated multimodal perception


Alternating Gradient Descent and Mixture-of-Experts for Integrated Multimodal Perception

Neural Information Processing Systems

IMP makes use of a novel design that combines Alternating Gradient Descent (AGD) and Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) for efficient model & 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.


Alternating Gradient Descent and Mixture-of-Experts for Integrated Multimodal Perception

Neural Information Processing Systems

IMP makes use of a novel design that combines Alternating Gradient Descent (AGD) and Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) for efficient model & 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.


Alternating Gradient Descent and Mixture-of-Experts for Integrated Multimodal Perception

Neural Information Processing Systems

IMP makes use of a novel design that combines Alternating Gradient Descent (AGD) and Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) for efficient model & 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. 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 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.