Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 45 references

SentiXRL: An advanced large language Model Framework for Multilingual Fine-Grained Emotion Classification in Complex Text Environment

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SentiXRL claims that one LLM, prompted with dialogue history and a generator–discriminator negotiation loop, outperforms specialized models on fine-grained emotion classification in English and Chinese.

desk verdict Plausible retrieval-plus-self-negotiation framework, but the ablation table contradicts the main results and the Chinese gains are confounded by extra instruction tuning. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18162 v1 pith:AI2GQ4HX submitted 2024-11-27 cs.CL

Jie Wang , Yichen Wang , Zhilin Zhang , Jianhao Zeng , Kaidi Wang , Zhiyang Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords fine-grainedemotionclassificationrecognitioninconversationslargelanguagemodelsmultilingualsentimentanalysisself-circularnegotiationmechanismretrievalenhancementclassimbalanceinstructionfine-tuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a single large language model, arranged in a retrieval-style prompt with historical dialogue and emotional deduction plus a self-negotiation loop, can do fine-grained emotion classification better than specialized discriminative models across English and Chinese. The payoff, if the claim holds, is that one text-only LLM framework can replace separate task-specific systems on emotion-in-conversation benchmarks while also handling class-imbalanced fine-grained labels. The authors evaluate on CPED, CH-SIMS, MELD, EmoryNLP, and IEMOCAP, report a weighted-F1 average on the English trio slightly above InstructERC and top accuracy on CPED, and add Twitter2015 and Twitter2017 tests for noisy long text. They also unify labels across several Chinese fine-grained emotion datasets and study category confusion and class imbalance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the self-circular analysis negotiation mechanism (SANM) built on top of an emotion retrieval enhancement module. The retrieval module rewrites each utterance as $T_i = [I_{u_i}, H_{u_i}, ld_{u_i}, E_{u_i}]$, where the instruction, history window, label domain, and an emotional deduction $E=(S,P,R)$ (inferred scenario, characters, relationships) condition the LLM before it classifies. SANM then runs the same LLM alternately as generator—producing a sentiment decision with a chain of distributional inference—and as discriminator—evaluating that decision with an explanation—until two consecutive rounds agree or the maximum round count is reached. This gives self-supervision without a second trained model and is the module the ablation study is meant to credit.

What would settle it

Run SentiXRL with and without the extra Chinese instruction fine-tuning, and with and without the SANM loop, on CPED and CH-SIMS while also giving the baselines the same instruction data; if the gap over baselines disappears when the extra training is removed or matched, the framework's claimed contribution is not supported. The SANM effect can also be checked directly by ensuring the without-SANM rows in the ablation table report genuinely different numbers from the full model, since the current table lists identical CH-SIMS and CPED values for the two conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SentiXRL—an LLM-based framework whose emotion retrieval enhancement module reformats each utterance as an instruction, a history window, allowed labels, and an inferred scenario-character-relationship tuple, and whose SANM loop makes the same LLM alternate between generator and discriminator until two consecutive rounds agree—outperforms existing models on CPED and CH-SIMS and achieves overall better performance on MELD, EmoryNLP, and IEMOCAP. With Llama3-8B the paper reports weighted-F1 values of 71.11, 68.72, and 42.51 on the three English benchmarks for an average of 60.78, just above InstructERC's 60.64, and accuracy of 50.70 on CPED against 48.02 for BERT+AVG+MLP. On Twitter2015 and Twitter2017 the paper claims text-only results of 77.28/70.93 and 70.84/69.12 accuracy/macro-F1, respectively, which it presents as improvements over text-only BERT.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that SentiXRL's advantage over the Chinese baselines comes from its retrieval and negotiation modules and not from the extra Chinese instruction fine-tuning on several million BELLE and moss-003 samples that the baseline models never received.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single text-only LLM framework could replace several task-specific discriminative models on emotion-in-conversation benchmarks, simplifying deployment and removing the need for multimodal inputs.
  • The self-negotiation loop supplies verification without a second trained discriminator, so the same alternating generator–discriminator templates could be ported to other classification tasks.
  • Label unification across fine-grained Chinese sentiment datasets plus equal-category mixing offers a practical recipe for studying and mitigating class imbalance in emotion data.
  • The reported overhead of SANM is modest (1.8 seconds versus 1.4 seconds per short sample at a maximum of three rounds), so self-verification looks affordable at inference time.
  • Stronger results on Twitter2015 and Twitter2017 than text-only BERT suggest the framework generalizes beyond scripted dialogue to noisy, longer social-media text.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test the paper leaves implicit is to run SentiXRL without the extra Chinese instruction fine-tuning, or to give the same fine-tuning to the baseline models, which would isolate what the two new modules actually contribute on Chinese data.
  • The negotiation mechanism could be treated as a general inference-time calibration layer; a cheap extension is to measure how classification decisions change after one, two, and three rounds on hard categories such as surprise.
  • Equal-category mixing on unified English datasets would test whether the class-balance findings transfer across languages, since the paper only runs that experiment on Chinese data.
  • If the framework is as portable as claimed, fine-grained emotion classification in lower-resource languages such as Arabic, Hindi, and Spanish would be a natural stress test consistent with the authors' stated future direction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SentiXRL, a fine-tuned LLM framework for fine-grained emotion classification in English and Chinese. It combines an emotion retrieval enhancement module that feeds instructions, a history window, label statements, and emotional deductions into the prompt (Eq. 2), and a self-circulating/self-circular analysis negotiation mechanism (SANM) in which a single LLM alternates between generator and discriminator roles until consensus (Eqs. 3-4). The paper reports results on CPED, CH-SIMS, MELD, EmoryNLP, IEMOCAP and Twitter2015/2017, plus a unified Chinese label-mapping experiment and an ablation study in Table 3.

Significance. If the reported results were correct, SentiXRL would be a strong text-only LLM framework for emotion recognition in conversations, showing that retrieval-enhanced prompting and self-negotiation improve fine-grained cross-lingual emotion classification. The paper's unified label-mapping experiment and the cost measurement in Appendix D are useful elements, and the stated processing-time comparison (1.8s vs 1.4s per sample) is a concrete practical data point. However, the empirical core is not currently verifiable: Table 3 provides no valid ablation evidence for SANM, Table 1 contradicts the CH-SIMS superiority claim, and the Chinese gains are confounded by an additional 3.5M-sample Chinese instruction fine-tuning not applied to the baselines. The paper does not release code or trained models, so reproducibility rests entirely on the reported numbers.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Table 3] The ablation table is internally inconsistent. Under 'LoRA+SentiXRL', the rows labeled 'w/o SANM+L2' and 'w/o SANM+L3' contain exactly the numbers reported as the full SentiXRL(L2) and SentiXRL(L3) in Tables 1 and 2 (e.g., IEMOCAP 70.52/71.11, MELD 67.33/68.72, EmoryNLP 40.37/42.51, CH-SIMS F1 76.5/82.8). No distinct full-SANM rows appear in that block. Consequently, the table does not demonstrate the claimed performance drop when SANM is removed; if anything, it suggests that the main results may have been produced without SANM or that the row labels are swapped. Because SANM is the paper's primary novelty, this is a load-bearing inconsistency that prevents verification of the central claim.
  2. [Abstract, §1, §4.1, Table 1] The headline claim of outperforming existing models on CH-SIMS is contradicted by the paper's own table. Table 1 lists MMML with F1 82.9, while SentiXRL(L3) achieves 82.83 and SentiXRL(L2) achieves 76.51. On CPED, SentiXRL(L3) Macro-F1 is 45.31, which is below the BERT-AVG-MLP baseline's 51.50; only Accuracy improves (50.70 vs 48.02). The statement in §4.1 that 'the F1 score on the CH-SIMS dataset increases by 1.55%' is not supported by any comparison shown in Table 1. These discrepancies concern the abstract's and introduction's central contribution claims.
  3. [§4.1, Table 2] The claim that the method 'surpasses the current SOTA models in most benchmarks' is not supported by Table 2. InstructERC achieves higher Weighted-F1 than SentiXRL on IEMOCAP (71.39 vs 71.11 for L3) and on MELD (69.15 vs 68.72 for L3). SentiXRL's advantages are limited to EmoryNLP (42.51 vs 41.37) and the three-dataset average (60.78 vs 60.64), both by very small margins. The conclusion should be softened to name the specific datasets where SentiXRL is ahead, and the absence of statistical significance testing should be acknowledged.
  4. [Appendix A, §4.1] The paper reports in Appendix A that the authors fine-tune Llama on approximately 3.5 million BELLE and moss-003 Chinese instruction samples before the emotion tasks. The Chinese baselines (MMML, ALMT, bcLSTM, DialogXL, BERT-AVG-MLP) did not receive this additional Chinese adaptation. As a result, any CPED or CH-SIMS gains cannot be attributed to the retrieval module or SANM rather than to the extra Chinese instruction fine-tuning. The authors should either ablate the framework with and without this Chinese instruction fine-tuning or compare against Chinese-adapted baselines before claiming that the framework itself drives the Chinese improvements.
  5. [§4.4, Table 4] The Twitter improvements stated in the text do not match the numbers in Table 4. The text claims increases of 2.6% and 2.87% in Accuracy and 3.21% and 4.63% in Macro-F1 on Twitter2015 and Twitter2017, respectively. From the text-only BERT baseline (Acc 74.15, Mac-F1 68.86 on 2015; Acc 68.15, Mac-F1 65.23 on 2017) to SentiXRL (Acc 77.28, Mac-F1 70.93; Acc 70.84, Mac-F1 69.12), the actual gains are 3.13, 2.07, 2.69, and 3.89 points. Please reconcile the reported improvements with the table or correct the table.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout, §3.2] The mechanism name is inconsistent: 'Self-circulating Analysis Negotiation Mechanism', 'Self-circular Analysis Negotiation Mechanism', 'SANM', and 'ANM' are all used, and Table 3 writes 'SAN M' with a space. Please standardize the terminology.
  2. [Eqs. (3)-(5), §3.2.3] Equations (3) and (4) are notational definitions rather than a mathematical model of the negotiation dynamics, and Eq. (5) is the standard focal loss. The authors should either provide a substantive formal analysis of the consensus process or describe the mechanism procedurally without claiming a mathematical derivation.
  3. [Table 4, References] Two baseline references appear to be incorrect: 'RAM' is cited as Zhang et al. 2023b (the Recognize Anything image tagging paper) and 'MemNet' as Tai et al. 2017 (an image restoration paper), although the table labels them as EMNLP 2017 and EMNLP 2016 aspect-level sentiment models. These citations should be replaced with the actual RAM and MemNet source papers.
  4. [§4.4, References] The Twitter2015 dataset is described as being used for 'assessing information veracity' and is cited to Liu et al. 2015 (a rumor-debunking paper), while the experimental setup treats it as an aspect-level sentiment analysis benchmark. Please clarify the provenance and task definition of the Twitter datasets used in Table 4.
  5. [Table 3 caption] The caption for Table 3 does not explain the meaning of the row blocks 'Zero-shot+SentiXRL', 'LoRA+Backbone', and 'LoRA+SentiXRL', nor does it specify what 'w/o SANM' removes in each block. A detailed caption is needed so that the ablations can be interpreted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity; the reported SANM ablation is internally inconsistent, but that is a verification flaw, not circular input.

full rationale

No self-definitional or fitted-input-as-prediction chain is present. Equations (3)-(4) only rename the generator/discriminator loop, Equation (5) is the textbook focal loss with ordinary hyperparameters (alpha=0.25, gamma=2.0), and the label mapping in the category-confusion experiment is a defined convention. The benchmark claims rest on direct comparisons against external baselines and are therefore externally falsifiable rather than equivalent to the inputs. The notable flaw is in Section 4.2/Table 3: under 'LoRA+SentiXRL' the only listed rows are 'w/o SAN M+L2' and 'w/o SAN M+L3', and their numbers are identical to the main SentiXRL results in Tables 1-2 (e.g., IEMOCAP 70.52/71.11, MELD 67.33/68.72, EmoryNLP 40.37/42.51, CH-SIMS F1 76.5/82.8, CPED Macro-F1 33.0/45.3). Section 4.2 nonetheless claims that removing SANM causes a large performance drop, so the ablation evidence is internally inconsistent. Additionally, Appendix A's Chinese instruction fine-tuning on roughly 3.5 million BELLE and moss-003 samples was not applied to the Chinese baselines, a protocol confound for the CPED and CH-SIMS gains. These are reproducibility and fairness concerns, not circular derivation; no central claim is defined in terms of its own output.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical ML paper, so the ledger records the hyperparameters and domain assumptions that carry the claims. No new physical entities are proposed. The main uncharged cost is the external Chinese instruction fine-tuning, which is an assumption about fair comparison.

free parameters (4)
  • Focal loss alpha = 0.25
    Set as a default in Section 3.2.3; weights the loss for class imbalance.
  • Focal loss gamma = 2.0
    Set as a default in Section 3.2.3; modulates down-weighting of easy samples.
  • SANM maximum negotiation rounds N (Max_round) = 3
    Appendix D reports an average processing time with Max_round = 3; chosen by hand and affects both accuracy and latency.
  • History window size m
    Equation (1) defines a history window H of length m, but the paper never reports the value used in experiments.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Role-alternating self-negotiation improves LLM classification accuracy
    Section 3.2 assumes that having one LLM alternate as generator and discriminator leads to better decisions, but no mechanism or proof is given, and the ablation table intended to support it is mislabeled.
  • domain assumption The label mapping across the nine Chinese datasets preserves original emotion semantics
    Section 4.3 and Figure 2 apply mapping rules to unify labels; if the mappings distort meaning, the category confusion experiment is uninterpretable.
  • domain assumption Extra Chinese instruction fine-tuning on BELLE and moss-003 is not the cause of the gains over baselines
    Appendix A fine-tunes Llama on 3.5 million external Chinese samples before evaluation; the baselines did not receive this, so the comparison assumes this extra data does not unfairly improve results.
  • domain assumption The five benchmark datasets are representative of multilingual complex text environments
    Section 4 limits evaluation to English and Chinese movie and daily dialogue plus Twitter, while the title claims multilingual; the paper itself acknowledges excluding XED and NaijaSenti.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SentiXRL: An advanced large language Model Framework for Multilingual Fine-Grained Emotion Classification in Complex Text Environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AI2GQ4HX

@misc{pith2026241118162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SentiXRL: An advanced large language Model Framework for Multilingual Fine-Grained Emotion Classification in Complex Text Environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AI2GQ4HX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18162}
}
read the original abstract

With strong expressive capabilities in Large Language Models(LLMs), generative models effectively capture sentiment structures and deep semantics, however, challenges remain in fine-grained sentiment classification across multi-lingual and complex contexts. To address this, we propose the Sentiment Cross-Lingual Recognition and Logic Framework (SentiXRL), which incorporates two modules,an emotion retrieval enhancement module to improve sentiment classification accuracy in complex contexts through historical dialogue and logical reasoning,and a self-circulating analysis negotiation mechanism (SANM)to facilitates autonomous decision-making within a single model for classification tasks.We have validated SentiXRL's superiority on multiple standard datasets, outperforming existing models on CPED and CH-SIMS,and achieving overall better performance on MELD,Emorynlp and IEMOCAP. Notably, we unified labels across several fine-grained sentiment annotation datasets and conducted category confusion experiments, revealing challenges and impacts of class imbalance in standard datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18162 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The illustration of different paradigms for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of SentiXRL Framework eling the interaction between the generator and discriminator as an iterative process, defined as follows: • G: Generator • D: Discriminator • T: Sentiment analysis text • RG: Generator response (including sentiment analysis) • RD: Discriminator response (evaluating gen￾erator response) • E: Final sentiment analysis • N: Maximum number of cycles The generator G generates a response RG … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Label Distribution in MELD,EmoryNLP and IEMOCAP Dataset data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Label Distribution in CH-SIMS and CPED We compared several single-text modality base￾lines with SentiXRL, conducting experiments on the Llama2-7B (L2) and Llama3-8B (L3) models. For Chinese emotion recognition tasks, the base￾line models included MMML (Wu et al.), ALMT…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimental results of SentiXRL(L3) on Unified Dataset ally, the loss graph shows that the dataset with equal mixing converges more rapidly. Due to the balanced distribution of categories, the model can learn the feature mapping relationships for all cate￾gories more …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: BELLE Data Structure Distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Moss Data Structure Distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gr...

    2020

  2. [2]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin...

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Carlos Busso, Murtaza Bulut, Chi-Chun Lee, Abe Kazemzadeh, Emily Mower, Samuel Kim, Jeannette N Chang, Sungbok Lee, and Shrikanth S Narayanan. 2008. Iemocap: Interactive emotional dyadic motion capture database. Language resources and evaluation, 42:335--359

    2008

  4. [4]

    Yirong Chen, Weiquan Fan, Xiaofen Xing, Jianxin Pang, Minlie Huang, Wenjing Han, Qianfeng Tie, and Xiangmin Xu. 2022. Cped: A large-scale chinese personalized and emotional dialogue dataset for conversational ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14727

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V

    Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Alex Castro-Ros, Marie Pellat, Kevin Robinson, Dasha Valter, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Zhao, Yanping H...

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805 Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . Preprint, arXiv:1810.04805

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Quan Hoang, Tu Dinh Nguyen, Trung Le, and Dinh Phung. 2018. Mgan: Training generative adversarial nets with multiple generators

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Dou Hu, Yinan Bao, Lingwei Wei, Wei Zhou, and Songlin Hu. 2023. Supervised adversarial contrastive learning for emotion recognition in conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01505

    arXiv 2023

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Zaid Khan and Yun Fu. 2021. Exploiting bert for multimodal target sentiment classification through input space translation

    2021

  2. [10]

    Noah Lee, Na Min An, and James Thorne. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.13788 Can large language models capture dissenting human voices? Preprint, arXiv:2305.13788

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Shanglin Lei, Guanting Dong, Xiaoping Wang, Keheng Wang, and Sirui Wang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.11911 Instructerc: Reforming emotion recognition in conversation with a retrieval multi-task llms framework . Preprint, arXiv:2309.11911

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    JiangNan Li, Zheng Lin, Peng Fu, and Weiping Wang. 2021. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:244119671 Past, present, and future: Conversational emotion recognition through structural modeling of psychological knowledge . In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lang...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Xiao Liu, Jian Zhang, Heng Zhang, Fuzhao Xue, and Yang You. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.00262 Hierarchical dialogue understanding with special tokens and turn-level attention . Preprint, arXiv:2305.00262

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Xiaomo Liu, Armineh Nourbakhsh, Quanzhi Li, Rui Fang, and Sameena Shah. 2015. Real-time rumor debunking on twitter. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 1867--1870

    2015

  7. [15]

    Yihe Liu, Ziqi Yuan, Huisheng Mao, Zhiyun Liang, Wanqiuyue Yang, Yuanzhe Qiu, Tie Cheng, Xiaoteng Li, Hua Xu, and Kai Gao. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.02604 Make acoustic and visual cues matter: Ch-sims v2.0 dataset and av-mixup consistent module . Preprint, arXiv:2209.02604

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.02265 Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks . Preprint, arXiv:1908.02265

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.244 Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computationa...

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Sebastian Ruder, Ibrahim Said Ahmad, Idris Abdulmumin, Bello Shehu Bello, Monojit Choudhury, Chris Chinenye Emezue, Saheed Salahudeen Abdullahi, Anuoluwapo Aremu, et al. 2022. Naijasenti: A nigerian twitter sentiment corpus ...

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    O hman, Marc P \`a mies, Kaisla Kajava, and J \

    Emily \"O hman, Marc P \`a mies, Kaisla Kajava, and J \"o rg Tiedemann. 2020. Xed: A multilingual dataset for sentiment analysis and emotion detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01612

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 3...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Soujanya Poria, Erik Cambria, Devamanyu Hazarika, Navonil Majumder, and Louis Philippe Morency. 2017 a . Context-dependent sentiment analysis in user-generated videos. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Soujanya Poria, Erik Cambria, Devamanyu Hazarika, Navonil Majumder, Amir Zadeh, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2017 b . Context-dependent sentiment analysis in user-generated videos. In Proceedings of the 55th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volum...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Soujanya Poria, Devamanyu Hazarika, Navonil Majumder, Gautam Naik, Erik Cambria, and Rada Mihalcea. 2018. Meld: A multimodal multi-party dataset for emotion recognition in conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.02508

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sara Rosenthal, Noura Farra, and Preslav Nakov. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S17-2088 S em E val-2017 task 4: Sentiment analysis in T witter . In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation ( S em E val-2017) , pages 502--518, Vancouver, Canada. ...

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Weizhou Shen, Junqing Chen, Xiaojun Quan, and Zhixian Xie. 2021. Dialogxl: All-in-one xlnet for multi-party conversation emotion recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 13789--13797

    2021

  18. [26]

    Xiaohui Song, Longtao Huang, Hui Xue, and Songlin Hu. 2022. Supervised prototypical contrastive learning for emotion recognition in conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08713

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ying Tai, Jian Yang, Xiaoming Liu, and Chunyan Xu. 2017. Memnet: A persistent memory network for image restoration. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 4539--4547

    2017

  20. [28]

    Yequan Wang, Minlie Huang, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Li Zhao. 2016. Attention-based lstm for aspect-level sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 606--615

    2016

  21. [29]

    Multimodal multi-loss fusion network for sentiment analysis

    Zehui Wu, Ziwei Gong, Jaywon Koo, and Julia Hirschberg. Multimodal multi-loss fusion network for sentiment analysis

  22. [30]

    Nan Xu, Wenji Mao, and Guandan Chen. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.3301371 Multi-interactive memory network for aspect based multimodal sentiment analysis . In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 371--378

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Hao Yang, Yanyan Zhao, and Bing Qin. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.emnlp-main.219 Face-sensitive image-to-emotional-text cross-modal translation for multimodal aspect-based sentiment analysis . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Languag...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Jingjie Yi, Deqing Yang, Siyu Yuan, Caiyan Cao, Zhiyao Zhang, and Yanghua Xiao. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.13254 Contextual information and commonsense based prompt for emotion recognition in conversation . Preprint, arXiv:2207.13254

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Liu Yingjian, Li Jiang, Wang Xiaoping, and Zeng Zhigang. 2023. Emotionic: Emotional inertia and contagion-driven dependency modelling for emotion recognition in conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11117

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jianfei Yu, Kai Chen, and Rui Xia. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2022.3171091 Hierarchical interactive multimodal transformer for aspect-based multimodal sentiment analysis . IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 14(3):1966--1978

    2023

  27. [35]

    Jianfei Yu and Jing Jiang. 2019. Adapting bert for target-oriented multimodal sentiment classification. In Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI-19

    2019

  28. [36]

    Jianfei Yu, Jing Jiang, and Rui Xia. 2020. Entity-sensitive attention and fusion network for entity-level multimodal sentiment classification. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 28:429--439

    2020

  29. [37]

    Jianfei Yu, Jieming Wang, Rui Xia, and Junjie Li. 2022. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2022/622 Targeted multimodal sentiment classification based on coarse-to-fine grained image-target matching . In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial ...

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Sayyed M Zahiri and Jinho D Choi. 2018. Emotion detection on tv show transcripts with sequence-based convolutional neural networks. In Workshops at the thirty-second aaai conference on artificial intelligence

    2018

  31. [39]

    Haoyu Zhang, Yu Wang, Guanghao Yin, Kejun Liu, Yuanyuan Liu, and Tianshu Yu. 2023 a . Learning language-guided adaptive hyper-modality representation for multimodal sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05804

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Youcai Zhang, Xinyu Huang, Jinyu Ma, Zhaoyang Li, Zhaochuan Luo, Yanchun Xie, Yuzhuo Qin, Tong Luo, Yaqian Li, Shilong Liu, Yandong Guo, and Lei Zhang. 2023 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03514 Recognize anything: A strong image tagging model . Preprint, arXiv:2306.03514

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Yupeng Zhang, Shensi Wang, Peiguang Li, Guanting Dong, Sirui Wang, Yunsen Xian, Zhoujun Li, and Hongzhi Zhang. 2023 c . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.831 Pay attention to implicit attribute values: A multi-modal generative framework for AVE task . In Findings o...

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Zhe Zhang, Zhu Wang, Xiaona Li, Nannan Liu, Bin Guo, and Zhiwen Yu. 2021. Modalnet: an aspect-level sentiment classification model by exploring multimodal data with fusion discriminant attentional network. World Wide Web, (6)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, Yifan Du, Chen Yang, Yushuo Chen, Zhipeng Chen, Jinhao Jiang, Ruiyang Ren, Yifan Li, Xinyu Tang, Zikang Liu, Peiyu Liu, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong W...

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  37. [45]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.