Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 31 references

Adaptive Modality Reliability Diagnosis and Restoration for Robust Multimodal Intent Recognition

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PRIME claims that explicitly estimating each modality's weakness as a contextual log-variance, using it to gate cross-modal residual restoration, and re-estimating reliability after restoration improves both clean accuracy and robustness un

desk verdict A coherent closed-loop reliability-restoration framework with careful clean-data ablations, but the advertised robustness gains are not actually shown in the main text, and the SOTA comparison is confounded by a much larger backbone. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03475 v1 pith:6QVNGFJW submitted 2026-08-04 cs.MM cs.AIcs.CL

Suraj Kumar , Mohnish Raj , Soumi Chattopadhayay , Chandranath Adak , Ayan Dutta This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MMcs.AIcs.CL
keywords multimodalintentrecognitionmodalityreliabilityuncertaintyestimationcross-modalrestorationinverse-variancefusionself-supervisedcorruptionmissingmodalitiesheteroscedastic
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

This paper proposes PRIME, a multimodal intent-recognition method built on the idea that a modality's reliability should be diagnosed, used for repair, and then re-checked before fusion. PRIME represents each modality's weakness as a log-variance estimated from four diagnostic cues—prediction energy, epistemic disagreement, divergence from cross-modal consensus, and feature norm—aggregated by a small transformer. Because datasets do not label reliability, the estimator is trained by corrupting modalities with known severity and regressing predicted weakness onto that severity. The weakness score gates a prototype-conditioned variational restoration module that reconstructs a degraded modality from reliable complementary ones, and reliability is re-estimated afterward to set inverse-variance fusion weights. On MIntRec and MIntRec2.0, PRIME reports the highest accuracy and weighted F1 across eleven prior methods, with the largest gains under noisy, missing, conflicting, and text-dominant conditions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the contextual log-variance s_m estimated for each modality, converted to weakness omega_m = sigma(s_m) and precision exp(-s_m). Diagnostic descriptors—energy-based confidence, ensemble disagreement, Jensen-Shannon divergence from cross-modal consensus, and feature norm—are processed by a Transformer along the modality dimension so each modality is judged relative to the others. Precision gates prototype-conditioned variational residual generation: only source modalities whose precision exceeds a batch-median threshold contribute, and the enhanced representation is passed through the same reliability estimator again, producing post-restoration precisions for inverse-var

What would settle it

Take a trained PRIME model and evaluate it on held-out inputs degraded by a type not used during training—for example, speaker-level acoustic perturbation, adversarial visual occlusion, or natural modality deletion—then measure whether predicted precision correlates with per-sample accuracy loss and whether restoration improves over simply dropping the degraded modality; a non-positive correlation or no improvement over the drop-modality baseline would refute the central robustness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a closed-loop diagnose-restore-reassess cycle makes multimodal intent recognition robust: instead of permanently discarding a weak modality, the model estimates its log-variance weakness (omega = sigma(s), precision = exp(-s)), uses that weakness both to pick trustworthy restoration sources and to scale the restored residual, then re-estimates precision on the enhanced representations and fuses by inverse-variance weighting. The authors argue that reliability is inherently context-dependent and should be explicitly learned, not inferred as a byproduct of classification; the self-supervised corruption-severity regression is what makes explic

Load-bearing premise

Reliability is learned by regressing predicted weakness onto synthetic corruption severity, so the method assumes the diagnostic signatures of artificial corruption match real-world degradation; if real test-time noise, missingness, or conflict looks different, the restoration gating and fusion weights will be miscalibrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If PRIME's central claim is correct, explicit per-modality reliability estimates make multimodal systems interpretable: one can see which modality was judged weak and how much restoration changed it.
  • The closed-loop design suggests that robustness in missing, noisy, and conflicting settings can come from repair rather than suppression, preserving information that discarding would lose.
  • The self-supervised corruption-severity regression offers a template for learning reliability without annotations in other multimodal tasks.
  • Reported gains are consistent across two benchmarks and eleven prior methods, indicating the benefit is not tied to a single dataset or architecture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A likely limitation is that the reliability estimator is miscalibrated on real-world degradation types whose diagnostic signatures differ from the synthetic corruptions used in training; a natural stress test is evaluating on out-of-distribution noise never seen during training.
  • The residual-restoration mechanism could generalize beyond intent recognition: replacing suppression with gated residual repair may improve robustness in any multimodal fusion pipeline, even without a dedicated reliability loss.
  • A testable extension is to check whether predicted post-restoration precision correlates with actual per-sample error; if it does, the same estimator could serve as a confidence score for abstention or human review.
  • Because the backbone is a frozen 7-billion-parameter encoder, computational scale may contribute to the gains; ablating with a smaller encoder would clarify how much of the improvement comes from the reliability machinery itself.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PRIME, a framework for multimodal intent recognition that explicitly estimates per-modality reliability as a log-variance, uses it to gate prototype-conditioned residual restoration, reassesses reliability after restoration, and fuses modalities by inverse-variance weighting. Training adds a heteroscedastic classification loss and a self-supervised loss that regresses the predicted weakness onto a synthetically injected corruption severity. Clean-data experiments on MIntRec and MIntRec2.0 report state-of-the-art numbers with ablations over components, diagnostic probes, restored modalities, and loss terms. The abstract, introduction, and conclusion claim robustness to missing, noisy, conflicting, and modality-imbalanced inputs, but the main text contains no robustness experiment; the authors refer to a supplementary appendix that is not part of the manuscript.

Significance. The closed-loop diagnose-restore-reassess idea is a reasonable and potentially useful departure from methods that either suppress unreliable modalities or fuse them with static weights. If the robustness claims were supported, PRIME would be a meaningful contribution to multimodal intent recognition: it treats reliability as a learnable, sample-specific latent variable and gives the model a chance to repair rather than discard a weak modality. The paper has strengths: the proposal is clearly formulated, the clean-data ablations in Tables III-VI show that each component contributes in-distribution, and results are reported over five seeds with standard deviations. However, the central robustness contribution is currently supported only by clean-data benchmarks and in-distribution ablations; the synthetic-corruption supervision transfer to real-world degradation is not analyzed. The empirical comparison is also confounded by the use of a much larger backbone for PRIME than for the baselines. These gaps are load-bearing because the paper's title and abstract center on robustness.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §IV.C; Table II; §V] The paper's headline claim is robustness to missing, noisy, conflicting, and modality-imbalanced inputs, yet the only experimental results in the main text are clean-data benchmarks (Table II) and clean-data ablations (Tables III-VI). No missing/noisy/conflicting/imbalanced experiment appears in the manuscript; the text says these are in 'supplementary material', but the appendix is not included. Because the title, abstract, and conclusion all assert robustness, this is not a presentation issue: the central empirical claim is currently unsupported. Please move the robustness experiments into the main text or revise the claims to describe only clean-data performance and in-distribution synthetic corruption.
  2. [§III.E, Eq. (19); §III.B, Eq. (6)] The reliability estimator is trained by regressing the weakness ω_m onto a synthetic corruption severity M_m (Eq. 19), and restoration is supervised with the known clean representation h_clean (Eq. 20). The corruption distribution, severity range, and sampling procedure are never specified. More importantly, no experiment checks whether the four diagnostic descriptors in Eq. (6) have the same relationship to real missing/noisy/conflicting inputs as they do to the synthetic corruption used during training. For example, a completely missing modality may produce a zeroed embedding with near-zero norm, while additive Gaussian noise on pooled embeddings produces a different diagnostic pattern. If the learned log-variance s_m is miscalibrated on such inputs, Eq. (13) and Eqs. (16)-(17) will misassign source-selection and fusion weights, and the closed-loop restoration cannot rescue the predict
  3. [§III.A, §III.B, §III.C (Eqs. (2), (6), (11), (17))] Missing-modality handling is underspecified. The method assumes every modality has a pooled representation h_m (Eq. 2), which is used by the diagnostic descriptor (Eq. 6), conditioning for restoration (Eq. 11), and final fusion (Eq. 17). If a modality is missing at test time, how is h_m obtained? The paper does not say whether missing inputs are zero-padded, masked, or imputed, and no missing-modality experiment is reported. Since 'missing' is one of the four robustness conditions in the central claim, this is a load-bearing gap. Please specify the input representation for missing modalities and evaluate the method under that protocol.
  4. [§IV.B; Table II] The comparison with prior methods is confounded by backbone scale. PRIME uses a frozen Qwen2.5-Omni-7B encoder with LoRA (Section IV.B), whereas the eleven baselines are, as far as reported, trained with much smaller feature extractors; the manuscript does not report backbone configurations for the baselines. The clean-data margins in Table II (e.g., +1.57 Acc over HIER on MIntRec) may therefore be attributable to the stronger pretrained backbone rather than to the proposed reliability mechanism. Please provide same-backbone comparisons, or report controlled experiments where all methods use the same features, so the SOTA claim is cleanly supported.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§IV.A] The text says 'three multimodal conversational benchmarks' but then lists only MIntRec and MIntRec2.0. Please correct the count or add the missing dataset.
  2. [References] Reference [33] is cited for MAG-BERT, but the given bibliographic entry is a paper on magnesium-text data mining in the Journal of Magnesium and Alloys, not a multimodal intent-recognition method. References [3] and [23] are identical, and references [6] and [9] are identical. Please verify and de-duplicate the bibliography.
  3. [§IV.B vs. §III.E, Eq. (19)] Section IV.B says 'a randomly selected modality is synthetically corrupted' during training, while Eq. (19) and the surrounding text say 'randomly corrupting each modality' over E={t,a,v}. Please reconcile this discrepancy: is one modality corrupted per sample, or all modalities with sampled severities?
  4. [Eq. (13)-(14)] Equation (13) introduces a batch-indexed indicator γ_o^(b), but Eq. (14) uses γ_o without the batch index. Please add a sentence clarifying that the selection is per sample.
  5. [§IV.C] The text reports a '1.22% improvement on WF1' on MIntRec2.0, but Table II shows 64.57 vs. 63.79, an absolute difference of 0.78 percentage points; 1.22% is the relative improvement. Please state this as relative or use percentage-point differences consistently.
  6. [Supplementary material] The manuscript repeatedly refers to the supplementary material for implementation details, robustness studies, hyperparameter sensitivity, and statistical significance testing, but the supplementary appendix is not included in the submitted version (only a GitHub link is provided). Please include the appendix so the reported results are reproducible and verifiable.
  7. [Figure 1] The figure contains a typo: 'Query Contrustion' should be 'Query Construction'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reliability estimate is supervised by an externally generated synthetic-corruption target, and the reported gains are empirical rather than derived from the fitted parameter.

full rationale

PRIME's central novelty is a learned reliability estimator (log-variance s_m from Eq. 7) that is trained by regressing the predicted weakness omega_m onto a sampled synthetic corruption severity M_m (L_sev, Eq. 19) and by a heteroscedastic classification loss (L_het, Eq. 18). The target M_m is an external supervision signal, not the paper's own conclusion, and the final fusion weights (Eqs. 16-17) are functions of the learned s_m but do not algebraically reduce to the corruption severity. There is no equation-level identity making the predicted accuracy equal to the fitted target; the robustness claim is an empirical generalization, whose main risk is whether synthetic corruption transfers to real missing/noisy/conflicting conditions. That is a correctness or domain-shift concern, not circularity. The paper contains one self-citation (MAG-BERT, Ref. [33], by co-author Suraj Kumar), but it appears only as a baseline method in Table II and is not used to justify PRIME's design, uniqueness, or results. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The ablation studies and comparisons with external baselines give the central claims independent empirical content. Accordingly, the derivation chain is not circular, though the transferability of the synthetic-corruption supervision remains an open empirical assumption.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The framework rests on several hand-set hyperparameters, an underspecified corruption process, and domain assumptions about the transfer of synthetic corruption to real-world degradation. The main invented construct is the learned weakness score, which has no independent falsifiable handle outside the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • loss weights lambda_cls, lambda_het, lambda_sev, lambda_res, lambda_gc, lambda_lb, lambda_pc, lambda_kl = not reported in main text
    Hand-selected hyperparameters in Eq. 23 balancing eight objectives; values are deferred to the supplementary appendix.
  • corruption severity distribution M_m = not specified
    Sampled severity used to train the reliability estimator via L_sev (Eq. 19); the distribution and corruption types are not given in the main text, making the central supervision signal under-specified.
  • prototypes per class kappa and memory size N_p = N_p = kappa * |C|, kappa unreported
    Prototype memory capacity controls restoration capability (Eq. 8); kappa is not stated in the main text.
  • number of ensemble heads K = unreported
    K defines the epistemic uncertainty probe F_ep (Eq. 4) but is not given.
  • softmax temperature tau = unreported
    Used in prototype attention (Eq. 8); a hand-set parameter not reported in the main text.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Synthetic corruption severity is a valid proxy for real modality unreliability
    L_sev (Eq. 19) trains omega_m to regress injected severity M_m. The method assumes the diagnostic descriptors that indicate artificial corruption also indicate natural noise, conflict, and missingness at test time. Stated in Section III-E.
  • domain assumption The four diagnostic probes are sufficient to characterize reliability
    D_m in Eq. 6 is the only evidence used by the CRE. No proof or analysis is provided that energy, ensemble disagreement, JS divergence to consensus, and norm fully capture reliability.
  • domain assumption Restoration residuals from complementary modalities can recover intent-relevant information without injecting noise
    Eq. 14 averages gated residuals from selected sources; the paper assumes the residual decoder and prototype retrieval are informative and that the batch-median threshold (Eq. 13) filters unreliable sources.
  • domain assumption The frozen Qwen2.5-Omni-7B encoder provides sufficient aligned modality representations
    Section III-B.1 uses the frozen encoder; the paper treats its embeddings as adequate for all downstream reliability and restoration modules without fine-tuning.
  • standard math Standard backpropagation and stochastic optimization converge to a good solution for the combined objective
    End-to-end training of Eq. 23 with AdamW and early stopping is assumed to yield the reported results.
invented entities (3)
  • Contextual log-variance s_m / weakness omega_m = sigma(s_m)
    purpose: Sample-specific latent modality weakness that gates restoration source selection and weights fusion (Eqs. 7 and 16).
    A learned scalar per modality, supervised internally by synthetic corruption; no external measurement or falsifiable prediction outside the paper is provided.
  • Prototype memory P
    purpose: Learnable intent prototypes used to retrieve semantic information for restoration (Eq. 8).
    A model parameter without external evidence, regularized by L_lb and L_pc.
  • Diagnostic reliability descriptor D_m
    purpose: Summary of four hand-picked reliability cues (Eq. 6).
    A constructed representation with no external validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Modality Reliability Diagnosis and Restoration for Robust Multimodal Intent Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6QVNGFJW

@misc{pith2026260803475,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Modality Reliability Diagnosis and Restoration for Robust Multimodal Intent Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6QVNGFJW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03475}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal intent recognition combines linguistic, acoustic, and visual evidence, but individual modalities may be noisy, missing, semantically conflicting, or disproportionately dominant. Existing methods typically infer modality importance implicitly and either reweight or suppress unreliable inputs, without determining whether a degraded modality can be repaired and subsequently trusted. We propose PRIME (Precision-weighted Reliability Inference and Modality rEstoration), a closed-loop reliability guided framework that jointly diagnoses, restores, and reassesses modality quality at the sample level. PRIME represents the weakness of each modality through a contextual log-variance estimated from complementary diagnostic evidence, including predictive confidence, epistemic disagreement, cross-modal consensus, and feature degeneracy. Because modality-reliability annotations are unavailable, the estimator is explicitly trained using controlled modality corruption with known degradation severity, together with a heteroscedastic uncertainty objective. Rather than directly discarding an unreliable modality, PRIME uses its estimated weakness to control a prototype-conditioned variational restoration module that reconstructs the degraded representation from complementary modalities. Crucially, reliability is re-estimated after restoration, allowing the model to determine whether the repaired representation has become sufficiently trustworthy to contribute to prediction. The resulting post-restoration precisions are used for inverse-variance multimodal fusion. Experiments on multimodal intent-recognition benchmarks show that PRIME maintains competitive clean-data performance while improving robustness under missing, noisy, conflicting, and modality-imbalanced conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03475 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of PRIME. Given multimodal embeddings, PRIME first estimates modality reliability using complementary diagnostic probes and a contextual reliability estimator. Reliability then guides prototype-assisted residual restoration, after which enhanced representations are re-evaluated to obtain updated precisions for inverse-variance fusion and intent prediction. Unlike conventional multimodal fusion methods, PRIM… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    Introducing magbert: A language model for magnesium textual data mining and analysis,

    S. Kumar, R. Jaafreh, N. Singh, K. Hamad, and D. H. Yoon, “Introducing magbert: A language model for magnesium textual data mining and analysis,”Journal of magnesium and alloys, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 3216– 3228, 2024. SUPPLEMENTARYAPPENDIX Appendices are provided at https://github.com/csksuraj17/ PRIME

    work page 2024

  2. [9]

    Uncertain multimodal intention and emotion understanding in the wild,

    Q. Yang, Q. Shi, T. Wang, and M. Ye, “Uncertain multimodal intention and emotion understanding in the wild,” inProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pp. 24700–24709, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [1]

    A survey on multi-modal intent recognition: Recent advances and new frontiers,

    Z. Zhu, F. Zhang, Y . Zhang, J. Sun, Z. Huang, Q. Long, B. Xing, and X. Wu, “A survey on multi-modal intent recognition: Recent advances and new frontiers,”Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, pp. 15223–15236, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [2]

    Deep learning approaches for multimodal intent recognition: A survey,

    J. Zhao, Y . Wen, Q. Li, M. Hu, Y . Zhou, J. Xue, J. Wu, Y . Gao, Z. Wen, J. Tao,et al., “Deep learning approaches for multimodal intent recognition: A survey,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22934, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    Adaptive multimodal fusion: dynamic attention allocation for intent recognition,

    B. Hu, K. Zhang, Y . Zhang, and Y . Ye, “Adaptive multimodal fusion: dynamic attention allocation for intent recognition,” inProceedings of the Thirty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty- Seventh Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Fifteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelli- g...

    work page 2025

  6. [5]

    SMIL: multimodal learning with severely missing modality,

    M. Maet al., “SMIL: multimodal learning with severely missing modality,” inThirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Arti- ficial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, p...

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Text takes over: A study of modality bias in multimodal intent detection,

    A. Mullick, S. Sharma, A. Jana, and P. Goyal, “Text takes over: A study of modality bias in multimodal intent detection,” inProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 24039–24069, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Multimodal intent recognition based on text-guided cross-modal attention,

    Z. Li, J. Peng, X. Lin, and Z. Cai, “Multimodal intent recognition based on text-guided cross-modal attention,”Appl. Intell., vol. 55, no. 7, p. 690, 2025. 8

    work page 2025

Show all 31 references
  1. [10]

    Adaptive re-calibration learning for balanced multimodal intention recognition,

    Q. Yang, X. Li, F. Lin, and M. Ye, “Adaptive re-calibration learning for balanced multimodal intention recognition,” inThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    2025

  2. [11]

    Mitigating Multi- modal Inconsistency via Cognitive Dual-Pathway Reasoning for Intent Recognition,

    Y . Wang, P. Wang, Y . Chi, Z. Gou, and K. Gao, “Mitigating Multi- modal Inconsistency via Cognitive Dual-Pathway Reasoning for Intent Recognition,” inProceedings of the 2026 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, pp. 797–806, 2026

    2026

  3. [12]

    Mtl-slt: multi-task learning for spoken language tasks,

    Z. Huang, M. Rao, A. Raju, Z. Zhang, B. Bui, and C. Lee, “Mtl-slt: multi-task learning for spoken language tasks,” inProceedings of the 4th Workshop on NLP for Conversational AI, pp. 120–130, 2022

    2022

  4. [13]

    Integration of pre-trained networks with continuous token interface for end-to-end spoken language understand- ing,

    S. Seo, D. Kwak, and B. Lee, “Integration of pre-trained networks with continuous token interface for end-to-end spoken language understand- ing,” inICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 7152–7156, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  5. [14]

    Unbiased multimodal audio-to-intent recognition,

    Q. Dong, Y . Dong, K. Qin, G. Duan, and T. He, “Unbiased multimodal audio-to-intent recognition,” inICASSP 2025 - 2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 1–5, 2025

    2025

  6. [15]

    Prototype-based intent perception,

    B. Wang, K. Yang, Y . Zhao, T. Long, and X. Li, “Prototype-based intent perception,”IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 25, pp. 8308–8319, 2023

    2023

  7. [16]

    Synergy of sight and semantics: visual intention understanding with clip,

    Q. Yang, M. Ye, and D. Tao, “Synergy of sight and semantics: visual intention understanding with clip,” inComputer Vision – ECCV 2024: 18th European Conference, Milan, Italy, September 29–October 4, 2024, Proceedings, Part XI, (Berlin, Heidelberg), p. 144–160, Springer-Verlag, 2024

    2024

  8. [17]

    LLM-guided semantic relational reasoning for multimodal intent recognition,

    Q. Zhou, H. Xu, Y . Wang, X. Dong, and H. Zhang, “LLM-guided semantic relational reasoning for multimodal intent recognition,” in Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing(C. Christodoulopoulos, T. Chakraborty, C. Rose, and V . Peng...

    2025

  9. [18]

    Evolutionary Multimodal Reasoning via Hierarchical Semantic Representation for Intent Recognition,

    Q. Zhou, H. Xu, Y . Gu, Y . Wang, S. Li, and H. Zhang, “Evolutionary Multimodal Reasoning via Hierarchical Semantic Representation for Intent Recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 14979–14989, 2026

    2026

  10. [19]

    Multimodal classification and out-of-distribution detection for multimodal intent understanding,

    H. Zhang, Q. Zhou, H. Xu, J. Su, R. Evans, and K. Gao, “Multimodal classification and out-of-distribution detection for multimodal intent understanding,”IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2025

    2025

  11. [20]

    An effective multimodal representation and fusion method for multimodal intent recognition,

    X. Huang, T. Ma, L. Jia, Y . Zhang, H. Rong, and N. Alnabhan, “An effective multimodal representation and fusion method for multimodal intent recognition,”Neurocomputing, vol. 548, p. 126373, 2023

    2023

  12. [21]

    Hierarchical attention-based multimodal fusion network for video emotion recognition,

    X. Liu, S. Li, and M. Wang, “Hierarchical attention-based multimodal fusion network for video emotion recognition,”Computational Intelli- gence and Neuroscience, vol. 2021, no. 1, p. 5585041, 2021

    2021

  13. [22]

    Wdmir: Wavelet-driven multimodal intent recognition,

    W. Gong, K. Zhang, Y . Zhang, Q. Liu, X. Sun, J. Lu, and L. Zhu, “Wdmir: Wavelet-driven multimodal intent recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10011, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Token-level contrastive learning with modality-aware prompting for multimodal intent recognition,

    Q. Zhou, H. Xu, H. Li, H. Zhang, X. Zhang, Y . Wang, and K. Gao, “Token-level contrastive learning with modality-aware prompting for multimodal intent recognition,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 38, pp. 17114–17122, 2024

    2024

  15. [24]

    Inmu-net: Advancing multi-modal intent detection via information bottleneck and multi-sensory processing,

    Z. Zhu, X. Cheng, Z. Chen, Y . Chen, Y . Zhang, X. Wu, Y . Zheng, and B. Xing, “Inmu-net: Advancing multi-modal intent detection via information bottleneck and multi-sensory processing,” inProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM ’24, (New York, N...

    2024

  16. [25]

    SeD- UD: An Influence-Driven and Hierarchically-Decoupled Information Bottleneck for Multimodal Intent Recognition,

    Q. Li, W. Zhang, L. Liu, H. Peng, J. Yang, and G. Xu, “SeD- UD: An Influence-Driven and Hierarchically-Decoupled Information Bottleneck for Multimodal Intent Recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 30346–303...

    2026

  17. [26]

    Who should I trust? explicit confidence- focused multimodal intent recognition,

    Y . Liu, Q. Yang, and L. Lu, “Who should I trust? explicit confidence- focused multimodal intent recognition,” inProceedings of the For- tieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Eighth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Sixt...

    2026

  18. [27]

    Bridging modality gaps: Cross-modal complementary learning with three-way decision for multimodal intent recognition,

    S. Li, X. Chen, D. Miao, H. Zhang, X. Qin, and P. Lu, “Bridging modality gaps: Cross-modal complementary learning with three-way decision for multimodal intent recognition,”Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 316, July 2026

    2026

  19. [28]

    Qwen2.5-Omni Technical Report,

    J. Xuet al., “Qwen2.5-Omni Technical Report,” 2025

    2025

  20. [29]

    MIntRec: A new dataset for multimodal intent recognition,

    H. Zhang, H. Xu, X. Wang, Q. Zhou, S. Zhao, and J. Teng, “MIntRec: A new dataset for multimodal intent recognition,” inProceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on multimedia, pp. 1688–1697, 2022

    2022

  21. [30]

    MIntRec2.0: A large-scale benchmark dataset for multimodal intent recognition and out-of-scope detection in conversations,

    H. Zhang, X. Wang, H. Xu, Q. Zhou, K. Gao, J. Su, W. Li, Y . Chen, et al., “MIntRec2.0: A large-scale benchmark dataset for multimodal intent recognition and out-of-scope detection in conversations,” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  22. [31]

    Misa: Modality-invariant and -specific representations for multimodal sentiment analysis,

    D. Hazarika, R. Zimmermann, and S. Poria, “Misa: Modality-invariant and -specific representations for multimodal sentiment analysis,” inPro- ceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM ’20, (New York, NY , USA), p. 1122–1131, Association for Computing M...

    2020

  23. [32]

    Multimodal transformer for unaligned multimodal language sequences,

    Y .-H. H. Tsai, S. Bai, P. P. Liang, J. Z. Kolter, L.-P. Morency, and R. Salakhutdinov, “Multimodal transformer for unaligned multimodal language sequences,” inProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics(A. Korhonen, D. Traum, and L....

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.