Chaos in the Text: Revealing the Modality Preference in Mixed-Modality Retrievers
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Dense retrievers have made significant progress on text and image corpora, but whether these capabilities extend reliably to mixed corpora containing text, image, and fused text-image documents remains unclear. In this paper, we systematically examine retrievers across architectures and find that their performance is highly sensitive to modality composition. As image documents are progressively replaced with semantically corresponding text representations, retrieval performance follows a pronounced V-shaped curve, remaining strong on single-modality corpora but degrading substantially when modalities coexist. In particular, irrelevant text causes more severe degradation than an equal number of irrelevant images, a phenomenon we term Chaos in the Text. Further analysis reveals modality preference, whereby text representations receive systematically higher similarity scores, allowing irrelevant text to outrank relevant images. To mitigate this bias, we introduce Trident, which constructs text, image, and fused text-image views of each document as co-equal positives and jointly optimizes relevance discrimination and positive-view balance through Multi-Positive View InfoNCE. Experiments across visual document and natural image benchmarks show that trident improves mixed-modality retrieval on both CLIP-based and VLM-based architectures, reduces sensitivity to modality composition and text distractors, and increases average single-modality retrieval performance.
Results and benchmarks
Dense retrievers have made significant progress on text and image corpora, but whether these capabilities extend reliably to mixed corpora containing text, image, and fused text-image documents remains unclear.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Repositories and ecosystem
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
- OpenBMB/Trident
Confidence: Low · 11 stars
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Retrieval / indexing
Methods
Retrieval-augmented generation
Domains
Computer vision, Information Retrieval
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.