MultiViz: Towards User-Centric Visualizations and Interpretations of Multimodal Models
Abstract
The nature of human and computer interactions are inherently multimodal, which has led to substantial interest in building interpretable, interactive, and reliable multimodal interfaces. However, modern multimodal models and interfaces are typically black-box neural networks, which makes it challenging to understand their internal mechanics. How can we visualize their internal workings in order to empower stakeholders to visualize model behavior, perform model debugging, and promote trust in these models? Our paper proposes MultiViz, a method for analyzing the behavior of multimodal models via 4 stages: (1) unimodal importance, (2) cross-modal interactions, (3) multimodal representations and (4) multimodal prediction. MultiViz includes modular visualization tools for each stage before combining outputs from all stages through an interactive and human-in-the-loop API. Through user studies with 21 participants on 8 trained models across 6 real-world tasks, we show that the complementary stages in MultiViz together enable users to (1) simulate model predictions, (2) assign interpretable concepts to features, (3) perform error analysis on model misclassifications, and (4) use insights from error analysis to debug models. MultiViz is publicly available at https://github.com/pliang279/MultiViz, will be regularly updated with new visualization tools and metrics, and welcomes input from the community1.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Liang et al. introduced the MULTIVIZ framework for understanding interactions between image and word embedding in multimodal learning, but associated applications in multimodal biomedical data learning are still limited.
“Liang et al. introduced the MULTIVIZ framework for understanding the interactions between image and word embedding in multimodal learning [172], but associated applications in multimodal biomedical data learning are still limited.”
From Challenges in AI-driven Biomedical Multimodal Data Fusion and Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [172]
Cites
Multimodal Language Analysis in the Wild: CMU-MOSEI Dataset and Interpretable Dynamic Fusion Graph
Bagher Zadeh, A., Liang, P. P., Poria, S., Cambria, E., & Morency, L.-P. (2018) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1208 · Cited by 1,433 · see citing works
Self-citationWomen Also Snowboard: Overcoming Bias in Captioning Models
Hendricks, L. A., Burns, K., Saenko, K., Darrell, T., & Rohrbach, A. (2018) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01219-9_47 · Cited by 404 · see citing works
Multimodal sentiment analysis with word-level fusion and reinforcement learning
Chen, M., Wang, S., Liang, P. P., Baltrušaitis, T., Zadeh, A., & Morency, L.-P. (2017) · Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction · doi:10.1145/3136755.3136801 · Cited by 334 · see citing works
Self-citationMultimodal Language Analysis with Recurrent Multistage Fusion
Liang, P. P., Liu, Z., Bagher Zadeh, A., & Morency, L.-P. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1014 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Self-citationLearning Representations from Imperfect Time Series Data via Tensor Rank Regularization
Liang, P. P., Liu, Z., Tsai, Y.-H. H., Zhao, Q., Salakhutdinov, R., & Morency, L.-P. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1152 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Self-citationDoes my multimodal model learn cross-modal interactions? It’s harder to tell than you might think!
Hessel, J., & Lee, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.62 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Challenges in AI-driven Biomedical Multimodal Data Fusion and Analysis
Liu, J., Cen, X., Yi, C., Wang, F.-A., Ding, J., Cheng, J., Wu, Q., Gai, B., Zhou, Y., He, R., et al. (2025) · Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/gpbjnl/qzaf011 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
- Authors
- Liang, P. P., Lyu, Y., Chhablani, G., Jain, N., Deng, Z., Wang, X., Morency, L.-P., & Salakhutdinov, R.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2023-04-19
- Pages
- 1-21
- OpenAlex
- W4366598895
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.63
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
- Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (R01MH125740, R01MH096951, U01MH116925)
- National Science Foundation (1722822, 1750439)
- Meta
- BMW of North America
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- multimodal models, model interpretability, cross-modal interaction, multimodal representation, model debugging, error analysis, human-in-the-loop, trust in AI, multimodal interfaces
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review