Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

PREMISE: Matching-based Prediction for Accurate Review Recommendation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PREMISE predicts review helpfulness from top-K semantic matching scores alone, outperforming fusion-based models on two benchmarks.

desk verdict Fusion-free matching-score architecture for review helpfulness is worth a serious referee, but the headline gains come from borrowed baselines and need a clean evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01255 v1 pith:5A3PZK37 submitted 2025-05-02 cs.CL cs.IRcs.MM

Wei Han , Hui Chen , Soujanya Poria This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.IRcs.MM
keywords multimodalreviewhelpfulnesspredictionmatching-basedsemanticmatchingscoresmulti-scalerepresentationsfusion-freearchitecturetop-Kfeatureselectionrankingcontrastivelearning
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 sets out to show that multimodal review helpfulness prediction does not need cross-modal fusion. PREMISE instead computes cosine similarity scores between multi-scale representations of the review text, review image, product description, and product image, keeps the top K scores, and feeds those sorted scores to a small regression network. On the Amazon-MRHP and Lazada-MRHP datasets, this matching-only architecture outperforms the strongest fusion-based baselines by roughly 5–10 points in MAP and NDCG while cutting training time by about half. The authors interpret this as evidence that the semantic coherence between a review and the product, and between a review's text and its image, is what carries helpfulness; they also report that the approach is not yet competitive on multimodal image-text retrieval.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Multi-Scale Matching Network (MSMN), a hierarchy of Transformer aggregation layers that generate feature scales from tokens to sentences to the whole review, and from detected image regions to the whole image. A fast k-means-based semantics refinement filter removes duplicate lower-level units, and cosine similarity matrices between the four field/modality representation matrices are computed with $S(A,B)=\cos(A,B)=AB^T/(\|A\|\,\|B\|^T)$, keeping only the top-K sorted scores as features for a linear-plus-sigmoid predictor. Because the top-K mask changes per input, the backpropagation path is input-dependent; the paper shows this is differentiable. The matching scores are the features themselves, not auxiliary losses, and this replacement of fusion is what carries the argument.

What would settle it

Replace the cosine similarity in Eq. (4) with a learned bilinear score or plain dot product while keeping the rest of the architecture fixed; if PREMISE no longer beats fusion baselines, the specific cosine-matching formulation is the source of the gains. A complementary test is to hold out reviews whose helpfulness is driven by reviewer credibility or temporal context and check whether PREMISE's ranking degrades sharply relative to a baseline that includes those signals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a vector of sorted top-K cosine matching scores, computed between multi-scale text and image representations from the product and review fields, is a sufficient and efficient feature set for multimodal review helpfulness prediction. PREMISE constructs the representations with stacked Transformer aggregation layers that hierarchically collate word tokens into sentences and whole reviews, and detected image regions into whole images; a fast k-means step prunes duplicated semantics. It then forms four representation matrices—product text, review text, product image, review image—and computes matching scores only for the review text–review image, review text–product text, and review image–product image pairs, excluding product text–product image scores. The highest K scores, with K typically 64–128, are the regression features. Trained with a listwise softmax loss, PREMISE improves MAP and NDCG over the strongest fusion baseline by about 5–10 points and reduces training time by roughly half; the paper states this is, to its knowledge, the first use of semantic matching scores as the predictive features rather than as auxiliary losses.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that how helpful a review feels is largely set by semantic coherence—between the review's text and its image, and between the review and the product description—as measured by cosine similarity in a learned shared space, leaving out reviewer credibility, temporal context, and category-specific language.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fusion modules are not required for review helpfulness prediction; matching-score features can replace them with higher ranking accuracy and lower training cost.
  • Small, sorted sets of high-coherence matches (K between 64 and 128) carry most of the signal, suggesting that the large concatenated feature vectors used by fusion baselines contain substantial redundancy.
  • Pretrained language models are not automatically superior on this task: PREMISE performs slightly better with GloVe embeddings than with BERT, consistent with the informal, messy language of customer reviews.
  • The same matching-based recipe may transfer to other tasks where semantic coherence is the target signal, although the paper's own retrieval experiments show it currently lags behind specialized retrieval models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to make K adaptive per review: the paper's optimal K range and input-dependent top-K gradient suggest that which matching pairs matter varies from review to review, and a learned threshold could improve both accuracy and interpretability.
  • If the coherence hypothesis is right, the top-K selected pairs double as explanations—a review is helpful because its text confirms the seller's claims or its image illustrates a mentioned feature—which fusion models do not readily offer.
  • The BERT-underperformance result may be dataset-specific; on professionally written or well-edited reviews, contextual encoders could regain an advantage, a comparison the paper does not run.
  • The paper's success on MRHP but weaker retrieval results bounds the claim: matching scores work best when the task itself is about coherence assessment, not when the target is general cross-modal retrieval.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PREMISE, a fusion-free architecture for multimodal review helpfulness prediction (MRHP). Instead of cross-modal attention or feature concatenation, PREMISE encodes product/review text and images, builds multi-scale representations with transformer-based aggregation layers, optionally refines them with a fast k-means filter, and then computes cosine matching scores between selected field/modality pairs. The top-K scores are used as regression features to predict helpfulness. Experiments on Amazon-MRHP and Lazada-MRHP report gains over fusion-based baselines and over the GBDT baseline, with roughly half the training time. The paper also includes ablations over feature-scale removal, an analysis of the K and r hyperparameters, a BERT comparison, an efficiency analysis, a small MSCOCO retrieval experiment, and qualitative case studies.

Significance. If the comparative results were established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it offers a simple alternative to fusion-heavy architectures for a ranking task where semantic matching plausibly matters, and it reports efficiency gains. The manuscript is transparent about datasets, hyperparameters, and ablations, and it attempts a theoretical analysis of computational cost. However, the central empirical claim of large gains over the state of the art is currently gated by evaluation-protocol concerns: baseline numbers are imported from a prior paper rather than re-run, run counts are inconsistent, and no variance or paired setup is described. The contribution is therefore plausible but not yet verified at the level that would justify the strength of the abstract and conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Tables 3 and 4] The evaluation protocol for the headline comparison is not sufficiently controlled. Section 4.3 states 'We run our models three times and report the average performance,' but Table 3's caption says 'All reported metrics are the average of five runs.' No standard deviations are reported. Table 3 also states that baseline results are from Nguyen et al. (2023), and Table 4 gives no provenance for the baselines. The claimed p-value<0.05 from a paired t-test requires a paired setup with identical test items and evaluation scripts for all models; no such paired setup is described, and the authors' own sampling procedure (Appendix B.3) may differ from the one used for the imported baselines. The 5–17 point improvements over GBDT could therefore be an artifact of protocol differences. Please re-run the baselines under the same splits, preprocessing, and evaluation code, or provide a rigorous argument for why the transferred numbers are directly comparable.
  2. [§3.4 and Table 5] The ablation study does not isolate the design choices that define PREMISE. The prediction stage excludes image-text matching for product descriptions by design, but no experiment in Table 5 reports performance when those scores are included. Similarly, no ablation varies the similarity function (cosine) or the top-K selection operation. The existing ablations remove entire scale groups (e.g., 'n-gram RoI repr') but never test whether the gains come from the matching-score representation specifically rather than from the multi-scale aggregation or from having many features. Without these controls, the paper's central claim that 'matching scores' are the operative factor is not fully supported.
  3. [Appendix D.1, Eq. (14)] The theoretical efficiency argument contains a mathematical error. The geometric sums in C_mm are (1 + 1/k + 1/k^2 + ...), which for k1=k2=10 give a factor of (1.111)^2 ≈ 1.235, not a factor bounded by 1/(k1 k2 (1-1/k1)(1-1/k2)) = 1/(100·0.81) ≈ 0.0123. Consequently the stated bound C_mm < 0.0123 l^2 d is too small by two orders of magnitude, and the conclusion Cm/Cf ≈ 0.5 does not follow from the displayed derivation. The measured training-time comparison in Figure 5 is valuable, but the theoretical analysis should be corrected or removed.
  4. [§3.5, Eqs. (7)–(8)] The training objective is underspecified. The loss applies softmax to true helpfulness scores y ∈ [0,4] and to sigmoid outputs f ∈ (0,1), and it is called a 'listwise loss' by reference to Nguyen et al. (2023). Treating ordinal labels as logits is unusual, and no justification is provided for why softmax over raw scores is appropriate. Please clarify whether this is a standard listwise loss such as ListMLE, how the softmax over y is computed, and why the mismatch between the logit scale and the sigmoid output scale does not distort the loss.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] There is a typo in 'yieding' (should be 'yielding').
  2. [§5.2] The text says 'a proper choice of r value (k = 4 in our experiments)' but the hyperparameters are consistently named r in Tables 9–11; please use one symbol throughout.
  3. [Table 12] The column heading 'PRMP' is not defined; standard MSCOCO retrieval evaluations typically report Recall@K, and the reader should be told what PRMP stands for and how it is computed.
  4. [Figure 3] The figure caption and text refer to 'relative MAP drop' but the axes are not labeled, and the text excludes K > 160 or K < 32 without showing them; please clarify what is plotted.
  5. [Appendix D.2] The figure caption and text describe relative training time but do not state the normalization or units; please add axis labels and a precise description of the measured quantity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PREMISE's matching-score features are computed from input representations, and its reported gains are empirical comparisons against external baselines rather than quantities derived from the target labels.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is input-driven, not label-driven. The features fed to the regression are the top-K cosine matching scores among multi-scale text and image representations (Eqs. 4-5); these are computed from product descriptions and reviews only, and the helpfulness labels enter only through the listwise loss (Eq. 7) and evaluation. There is no equation in which the predicted helpfulness is used to define a matching score, no parameter fitted to a subset of test labels and then renamed as a prediction, and no invocation of a uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work. The self-citations (e.g., Han et al. 2022 SANCL, Nguyen et al. 2022 CMCR) are used as baselines and as architectural precedents; the central comparison instead relies on numbers attributed to Nguyen et al. (2023), an external source. The claimed 5-10 point gains may be controversial because baseline numbers were not re-implemented and Table 3's 'five runs' caption conflicts with the text's 'three runs,' but that is an experimental-protocol concern, not circularity: the baselines are not constructed from PREMISE's outputs. The premise that semantic coherence drives helpfulness is an explicit hypothesis tested by ablations, not a definitional identity. Therefore no circular step is exhibited, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical or conceptual entities. The free parameters K and r are tuned on validation and are essential to the architecture. The axioms reflect the paper's core assumptions about what makes a review helpful and how to measure it.

free parameters (2)
  • K (number of top matching scores) = 64, 96, or 128 depending on dataset/category
    The final feature vector consists of the K highest cosine similarities. The paper shows performance varies strongly with K, and it is tuned per category.
  • r (expected cluster size in k-means refinement) = 4 for all experiments
    Controls the degree of semantic redundancy filtering. The paper shows MAP varies with r, and it is tuned on validation.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Helpfulness of a review depends on semantic coherence between the review and the product description, and between the review's text and image.
    This is the central hypothesis motivating the matching scores, stated in the Introduction and Section 3.4.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity in the learned shared space is an appropriate measure of semantic matching.
    Used in Eq. 4; the paper does not compare to other similarity functions or validate this choice.
  • domain assumption The listwise softmax loss on normalized helpfulness scores (integers 0-4) is a valid training objective for ranking.
    Section 3.5 uses this loss despite the mismatch between sigmoid outputs and integer labels, arguing that ranking is the goal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PREMISE: Matching-based Prediction for Accurate Review Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5A3PZK37

@misc{pith2026250501255,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PREMISE: Matching-based Prediction for Accurate Review Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5A3PZK37}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01255}
}
read the original abstract

We present PREMISE (PREdict with Matching ScorEs), a new architecture for the matching-based learning in the multimodal fields for the multimodal review helpfulness (MRHP) task. Distinct to previous fusion-based methods which obtains multimodal representations via cross-modal attention for downstream tasks, PREMISE computes the multi-scale and multi-field representations, filters duplicated semantics, and then obtained a set of matching scores as feature vectors for the downstream recommendation task. This new architecture significantly boosts the performance for such multimodal tasks whose context matching content are highly correlated to the targets of that task, compared to the state-of-the-art fusion-based methods. Experimental results on two publicly available datasets show that PREMISE achieves promising performance with less computational cost.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01255 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall architecture of PREMISE. We hide the data frame reorganization process betwixt two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The inner structure of an aggregation layer. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The performance (MAP) under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The relative MAP drop (the absolute value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relative training time of different models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A case study from Amazon-MRHP dataset. The upper and lower part of the figure is the product and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    URL: " 'urlintro :=

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Mahdi Abavisani, Liwei Wu, Shengli Hu, Joel Tetreault, and Alejandro Jaimes. 2020. https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_CVPR_2020/papers/Abavisani_Multimodal_Categorization_of_Crisis_Events_in_Social_Media_CVPR_2020_paper.pdf Multimodal categorization of crisis events in social media . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patt...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Viviana Alfonso, Codruta Boar, Jon Frost, Leonardo Gambacorta, and Jing Liu. 2021. E-commerce in the pandemic and beyond. BIS Bulletin, 36(9)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    John Arevalo, Thamar Solorio, Manuel Montes-y G \'o mez, and Fabio A Gonz \'a lez. 2017. Gated multimodal units for information fusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.01992

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Pradeep K Atrey, M Anwar Hossain, Abdulmotaleb El Saddik, and Mohan S Kankanhalli. 2010. Multimodal fusion for multimedia analysis: a survey. Multimedia systems, 16(6):345--379

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Nils Boysen, Ren \'e De Koster, and Felix Weidinger. 2019. Warehousing in the e-commerce era: A survey. European Journal of Operational Research, 277(2):396--411

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Jia-Ren Chang and Yong-Sheng Chen. 2018. Pyramid stereo matching network. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5410--5418

    work page 2018

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Cen Chen, Minghui Qiu, Yinfei Yang, Jun Zhou, Jun Huang, Xiaolong Li, and Forrest Sheng Bao. 2019. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3308558.3313587 Multi-domain gated cnn for review helpfulness prediction . In The World Wide Web Conference, pages 2630--2636

    2019

  2. [10]

    Cen Chen, Yinfei Yang, Jun Zhou, Xiaolong Li, and Forrest Bao. 2018. https://aclanthology.org/N18-2095.pdf Cross-domain review helpfulness prediction based on convolutional neural networks with auxiliary domain discriminators . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the Nort...

    2018

  3. [11]

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020 a . A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1597--1607

    2020

  4. [12]

    Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Licheng Yu, Ahmed El Kholy, Faisal Ahmed, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2020 b . Uniter: Universal image-text representation learning. In European conference on computer vision, pages 104--120. Springer

    2020

  5. [13]

    Kyunghyun Cho, Bart Van Merri \"e nboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. https://aclanthology.org/D14-1179.pdf Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation . arXiv prep...

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Sanghyuk Chun, Seong Joon Oh, Rafael Sampaio De Rezende, Yannis Kalantidis, and Diane Larlus. 2021. Probabilistic embeddings for cross-modal retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8415--8424

    2021

  7. [15]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Gerardo Ocampo Diaz and Vincent Ng. 2018. https://aclanthology.org/P18-1065 Modeling and prediction of online product review helpfulness: a survey . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 698--708

    2018

  9. [17]

    Victor Garcia and Joan Bruna. 2017. Few-shot learning with graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.04043

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ross Girshick. 2015. Fast r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Jing Gu and Zhou Yu. 2020. Data annealing for informal language understanding tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13833

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Greg Hamerly. 2010. Making k-means even faster. In Proceedings of the 2010 SIAM international conference on data mining, pages 130--140. SIAM

    2010

  13. [21]

    Kai Han, An Xiao, Enhua Wu, Jianyuan Guo, Chunjing Xu, and Yunhe Wang. 2021 a . Transformer in transformer. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34

    2021

  14. [22]

    Wei Han, Hui Chen, Alexander Gelbukh, Amir Zadeh, Louis-philippe Morency, and Soujanya Poria. 2021 b . https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3462244.3479919 Bi-bimodal modality fusion for correlation-controlled multimodal sentiment analysis . In Proceedings of the 2021 Internatio...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Wei Han, Hui Chen, Zhen Hai, Soujanya Poria, and Lidong Bing. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.coling-1.499 SANCL : Multimodal review helpfulness prediction with selective attention and natural contrastive learning . In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Co...

    2022

  16. [24]

    Devamanyu Hazarika, Roger Zimmermann, and Soujanya Poria. 2020. Misa: Modality-invariant and-specific representations for multimodal sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 1122--1131

    2020

  17. [25]

    Kaiming He, Haoqi Fan, Yuxin Wu, Saining Xie, and Ross Girshick. 2020. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9729--9738

    2020

  18. [26]

    Timothy Hospedales, Antreas Antoniou, Paul Micaelli, and Amos Storkey. 2020. Meta-learning in neural networks: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05439

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ruibing Hou, Hong Chang, Bingpeng Ma, Shiguang Shan, and Xilin Chen. 2019. Cross attention network for few-shot classification. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32

    2019

  20. [28]

    Yan Huang, Wei Wang, and Liang Wang. 2017. Instance-aware image and sentence matching with selective multimodal lstm. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2310--2318

    2017

  21. [29]

    a rvelin and Jaana Kek \

    Kalervo J \"a rvelin and Jaana Kek \"a l \"a inen. 2017. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3130348.3130374 Ir evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents . In ACM SIGIR Forum, volume 51, pages 243--250. ACM New York, NY, USA

    2017

  22. [30]

    Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, Matthijs Douze, H \'e rve J \'e gou, and Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Fasttext. zip: Compressing text classification models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.03651

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Jongmin Kim, Taesup Kim, Sungwoong Kim, and Chang D Yoo. 2019. Edge-labeling graph neural network for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11--20

    2019

  24. [32]

    Wonjae Kim, Bokyung Son, and Ildoo Kim. 2021. Vilt: Vision-and-language transformer without convolution or region supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5583--5594. PMLR

    2021

  25. [33]

    Svetlana Lazebnik, Cordelia Schmid, and Jean Ponce. 2006. Beyond bags of features: Spatial pyramid matching for recognizing natural scene categories. In 2006 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR'06), volume 2, pages 2169--2178. IEEE

    2006

  26. [34]

    Kunpeng Li, Yulun Zhang, Kai Li, Yuanyuan Li, and Yun Fu. 2019. Visual semantic reasoning for image-text matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4654--4662

    2019

  27. [35]

    Yann Lifchitz, Yannis Avrithis, Sylvaine Picard, and Andrei Bursuc. 2019. Dense classification and implanting for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9258--9267

    2019

  28. [36]

    Junhao Liu, Zhen Hai, Min Yang, and Lidong Bing. 2021. https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.461.pdf Multi-perspective coherent reasoning for helpfulness prediction of multimodal reviews . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguist...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Yu Liu, Yanming Guo, Erwin M Bakker, and Michael S Lew. 2017. Learning a recurrent residual fusion network for multimodal matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4107--4116

    2017

  30. [38]

    Zhun Liu, Ying Shen, Varun Bharadhwaj Lakshminarasimhan, Paul Pu Liang, Amir Zadeh, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2018. Efficient low-rank multimodal fusion with modality-specific factors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00064

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Lin Ma, Zhengdong Lu, Lifeng Shang, and Hang Li. 2015. Multimodal convolutional neural networks for matching image and sentence. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2623--2631

    2015

  32. [40]

    Juhong Min, Dahyun Kang, and Minsu Cho. 2021. Hypercorrelation squeeze for few-shot segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 6941--6952

    2021

  33. [41]

    Satyam Mohla, Shivam Pande, Biplab Banerjee, and Subhasis Chaudhuri. 2020. Fusatnet: Dual attention based spectrospatial multimodal fusion network for hyperspectral and lidar classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition W...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Arsha Nagrani, Shan Yang, Anurag Arnab, Aren Jansen, Cordelia Schmid, and Chen Sun. 2021. Attention bottlenecks for multimodal fusion. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34

    2021

  35. [43]

    Jiquan Ngiam, Aditya Khosla, Mingyu Kim, Juhan Nam, Honglak Lee, and Andrew Y Ng. 2011. Multimodal deep learning. In ICML

    2011

  36. [44]

    Thomas L Ngo-Ye and Atish P Sinha. 2014. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923614000128 The influence of reviewer engagement characteristics on online review helpfulness: A text regression model . Decision Support Systems, 61:47--58

    2014

  37. [45]

    Thong Nguyen, Xiaobao Wu, Xinshuai Dong, Anh Tuan Luu, Cong-Duy Nguyen, Zhen Hai, and Lidong Bing. 2023. Gradient-boosted decision tree for listwise context model in multimodal review helpfulness prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12678

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Thong Nguyen, Xiaobao Wu, Anh Tuan Luu, Zhen Hai, and Lidong Bing. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.emnlp-main.686 Adaptive contrastive learning on multimodal transformer for review helpfulness prediction . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natur...

    2022

  39. [47]

    Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. 2018. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.03748.pdf Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding . arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2014. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1162.pdf Glove: Global vectors for word representation . In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532--1543

    2014

  41. [49]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learni...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2015. https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2015/file/14bfa6bb14875e45bba028a21ed38046-Paper.pdf Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks . Advances in neural information processing systems, 28:91--99

    2015

  43. [51]

    Jianlou Si, Honggang Zhang, Chun-Guang Li, Jason Kuen, Xiangfei Kong, Alex C Kot, and Gang Wang. 2018. Dual attention matching network for context-aware feature sequence based person re-identification. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogn...

    2018

  44. [52]

    Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard Zemel. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  45. [53]

    Flood Sung, Yongxin Yang, Li Zhang, Tao Xiang, Philip HS Torr, and Timothy M Hospedales. 2018. Learning to compare: Relation network for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1199--1208

    2018

  46. [54]

    Jiliang Tang, Huiji Gao, Xia Hu, and Huan Liu. 2013. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2507157.2507183 Context-aware review helpfulness rating prediction . In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 1--8

    2013

  47. [55]

    Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Shaojie Bai, Paul Pu Liang, J Zico Kolter, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2019. Multimodal transformer for unaligned multimodal language sequences. In Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting, vo...

    2019

  48. [56]

    Joaquin Vanschoren. 2018. Meta-learning: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.03548

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  50. [58]

    Oriol Vinyals, Charles Blundell, Timothy Lillicrap, Daan Wierstra, et al. 2016. Matching networks for one shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29

    2016

  51. [59]

    Nir Vulkan. 2020. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780691214542/pdf The Economics of E-commerce . Princeton University Press

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    Zheng Wang, Zhenwei Gao, Kangshuai Guo, Yang Yang, Xiaoming Wang, and Heng Tao Shen. 2023. Multilateral semantic relations modeling for image text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2830--2839

    2023

  53. [61]

    Davis Wertheimer, Luming Tang, and Bharath Hariharan. 2021. Few-shot classification with feature map reconstruction networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8012--8021

    2021

  54. [62]

    Nan Xu, Zhixiong Zeng, and Wenji Mao. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.349.pdf Reasoning with multimodal sarcastic tweets via modeling cross-modality contrast and semantic association . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational ...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.