Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Dynamic Interaction-Aware and Causality-Disentangled Framework for Multimodal Sentiment Analysis

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Separating bias from meaning lifts multimodal sentiment accuracy to 86.5%

desk verdict A well-motivated MSA pipeline with real ablation evidence, but the causal claim rests on an unproven shuffle intervention and a headline module never appears in the methods. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.30994 v4 pith:ARSI5STW submitted 2026-05-29 cs.MM

Guangyuan Dong , Ziwei Hong , Shenghao Liu , Chenyu Wu , Yuanyuan Fang , Zihao Li , Xudong Zhang , Bingchen Liu
show 4 more authors
Yuchen Zhang Haitao Ding Zhenzhou Zhou Ziyu Song
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MM
keywords multimodalsentimentanalysiscausaldisentanglementdynamicfusionlanguagebiasstructuralmodeldiffusiondenoisinginteractionroutingCMU-MOSEI
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 argues that two flaws undermine current multimodal sentiment models: they suppress conflicting cues with static weights, and they let the dominant language modality leak its own sentimental bias into the fusion. To fix this, it proposes a three-stage pipeline: a causal disentanglement module that splits language features into semantic content and bias via a do-calculus shuffle intervention; a dynamic router that classifies each moment's cross-modal relation as complementary, conflicting, or redundant and reweights information flow accordingly; and a diffusion denoiser that iteratively cleans the fused representation. On two standard benchmarks, the full pipeline reports the best binary classification accuracy and F1 to date (about 86.5–86.7%). The intended takeaway is that explicit, causality-grounded debiasing plus interaction-aware routing is superior to static suppression.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the shuffle-based causal intervention in the Causality-Guided Modal Disentanglement module. Language features x_l are encoded into a semantic factor Z_s and a bias factor Z_b; the model reconstructs the input as U_l = G(Z_s, Z_b) and also as G(Z_s, Shuffle(Z_b)) for swapped bias factors, then optimizes reconstruction, an HSIC independence term, and a contrastive alignment between Z_s and audio-visual cues. The shuffle is meant to implement a do-calculus intervention that fixes semantics while randomizing bias, so that the learned semantic encoder yields a de-confounded language representation used downstream. The Dynamic Multimodal Interaction Router then comput

What would settle it

Run the exact MCAF pipeline but replace the shuffle intervention with (a) a random permutation of the entire language representation (semantics and bias together) and (b) no intervention; if Acc-2 on CMU-MOSI stays at 86.5% under either, the causal disentanglement is not the source of the gain. Alternatively, create a held-out set by flipping the sentiment polarity of neutral words (or introducing a known spurious word-label correlation in training) and measure whether the de-confounded model's accuracy on those examples improves relative to a model without CGMD.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a Multimodal Causal Disentanglement and Adaptive Fusion pipeline (MCAF) achieves state-of-the-art sentiment classification by (1) separating language features into a semantic factor and a bias factor through a Structural Causal Model, intervening by shuffling the bias factor across batch samples to produce a de-confounded language guide; (2) using a Multi-Granularity Causal Dynamic Router that estimates feature-, temporal-, and modality-level interaction states and generates sparse routing matrices to reweight and route each modality's contribution; and (3) applying a Conditional Diffusion Denoising Module to iteratively remove residual noise from the fused joint re

Load-bearing premise

The framework's causal claim rests on treating batch shuffling of the bias factor as a genuine do-calculus intervention; if the semantic/bias split is arbitrary or shuffling induces a distribution shift rather than a counterfactual, the de-confounded representation's gains could be due to regularization alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the approach is correct, language-guided fusion no longer propagates dataset priors into other modalities, so the model should transfer across domains with different language-sentiment correlations.
  • Dynamic routing means sarcastic or ironic samples, where modalities conflict, are treated as informative rather than suppressed, which should improve performance precisely on such examples.
  • The diffusion refiner provides a generative, iterative way to clean fused multimodal representations that could be reused in other multimodal tasks beyond sentiment.
  • The reported gains on binary classification, if replicated, would shift MSA research toward explicit causal disentanglement and interaction-state routing rather than static conflict suppression.
  • The causal debiasing step could be adapted to other dominant-modality settings, for example in vision-language tasks where text priors skew visual grounding.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Our inference: The shuffle intervention is conceptually a cross-sample augmentation; a testable prediction is that replacing Shuffle(Z_b) with a random Gaussian perturbation of the bias factor would yield similar gains if the mechanism is purely denoising, or much smaller gains if the causal interpretation is necessary.
  • Our inference: The bias encoder (discarded at inference) could be probed directly to measure dataset-level language bias; one could check whether the Z_b statistics correlate with known spurious patterns in the benchmarks.
  • Our inference: The routing matrix R could be supervised with explicit interaction-state labels (e.g., by designing synthetic mixtures) to turn the router into an interpretable module that predicts conflict; the current unsupervised routing might conflate conflict with noise.
  • Our inference: The framework's regression metrics lag its classification metrics; this suggests the denoising step may smooth away intensity information, a side effect that a simpler linear or non-diffusion fusion might avoid.
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 MCAF, a multimodal sentiment analysis framework with three advertised components: a causality-guided modal disentanglement module (CGMD), a dynamic multimodal interaction router (DMIR), and a conditional diffusion denoising module. The CGMD is intended to separate semantic content from language bias via a structural causal model and a shuffle-based intervention; the DMIR adaptively routes information across feature, temporal, and modality levels; and the diffusion module is meant to refine the fused representation. On CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI the paper reports state-of-the-art binary classification results (Acc-2/F1 of 86.52%/86.51% and 86.72%/86.65%, respectively). Section III formally describes CGMD and DMIR, but the conditional diffusion module is never defined. The causal intervention is implemented by shuffling the bias factor and reconstructing the original input, which is inconsistent with the stated counterfactual, and the empirical claims are based on single runs without significance testing.

Significance. If the causal disentanglement and dynamic routing mechanisms were properly identified, the framework could be a meaningful step toward debiased multimodal fusion. The paper has a clear conceptual motivation and provides a standard set of benchmarks, including ablations of CGMD and DMIR. However, the central causal claim is not supported by the presented objective: Eq. (8) trains the decoder to reconstruct the original input after shuffling the bias factor, which undermines the claimed do-calculus intervention. The diffusion module, advertised as a cornerstone, is absent from the methodology and ablations, making the full pipeline irreproducible. In addition, the reported SOTA margins are small and are not accompanied by error bars or significance tests. The manuscript therefore does not establish its main claims; the potential is present, but the current form is not publishable.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III-B, Eqs. (5)–(8)] The shuffle intervention is not a do-calculus intervention. Under the declared generative model U_l = G(Z_s, Z_b) + ε, replacing Z_b^i by Z_b^j should produce the counterfactual U_l^{i→j} = G(Z_s^i, Z_b^j) + ε, not the original U_l^i. Training D(Z_s^i, Z_b^j) to reconstruct U_l^i in Eq. (8) forces the decoder to ignore Z_b, so Z_s and Z_b are not identified as semantic content versus bias. No SCM graph, exogeneity assumptions, or identifiability proof is supplied, and Z_b is never directly measured or validated. The claim that the resulting L_pure is a 'de-confounded' representation is therefore unsupported; the gains could arise from the HSIC penalty or contrastive alignment alone.
  2. [Abstract, §I, §III (missing)] The Conditional Diffusion Denoising Module is advertised in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion as a cornerstone of the framework, but Section III contains no equation, algorithm, architecture, or hyperparameters for it. It is also not ablated in Table IV. Consequently, the full pipeline named MCAF is not reproducible, and the contribution of the denoising refiner to the reported 86.52%/86.72% Acc-2 numbers cannot be evaluated.
  3. [Table II, §IV-D] All comparisons are single-run point estimates. The claimed SOTA margins over MCEN are small: on MOSI, Acc-2 +0.20 and F1 +0.36; on MOSEI, Acc-2 +0.13 and F1 +0.16. Without error bars across multiple seeds or a significance test, the headline 'new state-of-the-art' claim is not established. Moreover, on MOSEI the proposed method is worse than MCEN on MAE, Corr, and ACC-7, so the claim must be qualified to binary classification metrics only.
  4. [§IV-D, Table IV] The ablation study removes CGMD and DMIR but never removes the diffusion module. Given that the diffusion module is introduced as a separate, core contribution, an ablation isolating its effect is necessary. The label 'Full Methods' is also ambiguous because the diffusion component is not defined in the methodology. Without this ablation, Table IV cannot validate the complete architecture described in the abstract.
  5. [§III-B, Eq. (11); §I] The paper repeatedly invokes the information bottleneck principle (abstract, Section I), but the CGMD loss in Eq. (11) contains no information bottleneck term—no mutual information bound, no KL divergence, no compression term. The actual objective is reconstruction fidelity, HSIC independence, and contrastive alignment. Either the IB claim should be withdrawn or a concrete IB objective should be derived and included.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I vs §IV-A] Dataset statistics are inconsistent: Table I lists CMU-MOSI train as 1,283 and All as 2,198, while §IV-A states 1,284 and 2,199. Please correct.
  2. [Eq. (12)] Eq. (12) defines L_pure = Pool(Z_s) ∈ R^{T×d} and says Pool denotes temporal pooling. Temporal pooling would reduce the time dimension to a single vector (R^d), not preserve T. Please clarify the pooling operation.
  3. [Eq. (18)] After multiplication by the gate G_{ij}, the routing rows no longer sum to 1 even though the text states P_j R_{ij}=1. Please specify whether G is applied after row normalization or whether normalization is re-applied.
  4. [Tables II–IV, §III-C] Typos: 'CUM-MOSI' in Tables II and III, 'CMJNON' in the Table IV title, 'Emplows' in §III-C. Also 'MULT' should be 'MulT' and 'SLEF-MM' should be 'SELF-MM'.
  5. [References] References [3], [6], and [7] concern federated SAR image recognition and point cloud classification and appear unrelated to multimodal sentiment analysis. Please replace them with relevant citations or justify their inclusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The 'do-calculus intervention' in the causal disentanglement module is self-definitional: the shuffled-branch decoder is trained to reconstruct the original input rather than the counterfactual output, so the 'bias factor' is defined as whatever the shuffle can remove without changing the reconstruction target.

  1. self definitional [Section III-B, Eqs. (5)-(8)]
    "Specifically, for a batch of samples, we construct intervened representations: Z′_b = Shuffle(Z_b) and U′_l = G(Z_s, Z′_b) (6) ... The module employs a decoder D to reconstruct the original input from both original and intervened representations: ˆU_l = D(Z_s, Z_b; θ_d), ˆU′_l = D(Z_s, Z′_b; θ_d) (7) ... L_recon = ∥U_l − ˆU_l∥²_F + ∥U_l − ˆU′_l∥²_F (8)"

    Equation (6) defines the counterfactual output U′_l = G(Z_s, Z′_b), but Eq. (8) never uses U′_l as a target. Instead, D(Z_s, Z′_b) is trained to reconstruct the original U_l. The only way this objective can be satisfied is by making the decoder insensitive to Z_b, so Z_b is defined as the component that can be shuffled away while still reconstructing the original input. Consequently, the 'purified' semantic factor Z_s is defined by the same reconstruction, HSIC, and alignment losses used to validate it, and the claimed causal intervention reduces to an invariance regularizer. No identification proof or direct measurement of Z_b establishes that the split corresponds to semantic content versus sentiment bias, so the de-confounding claim is circular by construction.

full rationale

The headline empirical claim—new state-of-the-art Acc-2/F1 on CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI—is an external benchmark comparison against fixed test labels, so it is not circular. The comparison with MCEN, whose authors overlap with the present paper, is a benchmark-fairness concern rather than circularity, because the test labels are independent of the authors' prior claims. No self-citation chain is load-bearing for the reported numbers. The one genuine circular step is confined to the causal-disentanglement module: Eq. (8) trains the shuffled branch to reconstruct the original language input instead of the counterfactual output defined in Eq. (6), so the 'bias factor' is empirically defined as whatever the shuffle can remove without changing the reconstruction target. This makes the causal-debiasing interpretation self-definitional, although the module could still act as a useful regularizer. Separately, the Conditional Diffusion Denoising Module named in the abstract is not described in Section III, which is a reproducibility gap but not circularity. Overall, the empirical derivation is self-contained, but a central interpretive claim partially reduces to its own training objective.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on latent-variable separability that is assumed rather than proven, plus a set of unstated hyperparameters. The largest gap is the absent diffusion-denoising module, which is a headline contribution but has no equations or implementation details. The empirical SOTA claim additionally depends on the benchmark protocol inherited from prior work (feature extraction, train/val/test splits), which is standard for the field.

free parameters (7)
  • λ1, λ2, λ3 = not reported
    Weights balancing reconstruction, HSIC independence, and contrastive alignment in L_CGMD (Eq. 11); their values are never given.
  • τ (contrastive temperature) = not reported
    Temperature in the cross-modal alignment loss (Eq. 10), chosen without stated value.
  • τ' (router temperature) = not reported
    Temperature in the sparse routing gating (Eq. 18), described only as 'annealed during training'.
  • d, T = d=128, T=50
    Shared latent dimension and fixed sequence length; architecture choices that affect capacity and alignment.
  • MLP hidden dims and dropout = [256,128,9], p=0.3
    Hyperparameters of the interaction fusion network (Eq. 16).
  • Training hyperparameters = batch {64,64}, epochs {30,15}, lr {1e-4,5e-5}
    Per-dataset training settings; chosen without sensitivity analysis.
  • Diffusion module hyperparameters = not reported
    The conditional diffusion denoising module has no equations, steps, noise schedule, or architecture in the paper.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Language features are generated by a separable SCM: U_l = G(Z_s, Z_b) + ε, where Z_s is semantic and Z_b is bias.
    Eq. (5) asserts a generative structure without an identification proof; the separability of semantics and bias is taken as given.
  • ad hoc to paper Shuffling Z_b across samples implements a valid do-calculus intervention.
    Eq. (6) treats U'_l = G(Z_s, Shuffle(Z_b)) as a counterfactual; no causal graph or identifiability argument is provided.
  • domain assumption HSIC independence plus contrastive alignment suffices to separate true semantics from bias.
    Section III.B imposes L_ind and L_align; these losses define, rather than verify, what counts as bias and semantics.
  • domain assumption Language is the dominant confound, and visual/acoustic cues carry genuine contradictory information.
    Section I motivates the method from this premise; it is not tested directly.
  • domain assumption Complementary, conflicting, and redundant interaction states are well-defined and learnable from data.
    Section III.C assumes these three states are sufficient and that the router can infer them without ground-truth interaction labels.
  • domain assumption Iterative denoising of the fused representation removes irrelevant information while preserving sentiment signal.
    This is the stated purpose of the diffusion refiner, but the module is never specified in the methodology.
invented entities (3)
  • Z_b (bias factor)
    purpose: Captures spurious sentiment bias in language features so it can be shuffled out.
    Defined only through reconstruction/HSIC/alignment losses; no external measurement of bias is provided.
  • Z_s (semantic factor)
    purpose: Purified language representation used as the guiding signal for fusion.
    Its 'semantic' content is validated only by downstream accuracy, not by any direct test of semantic preservation.
  • Hyper-modality representation
    purpose: Robust fused embedding after iterative denoising.
    Central to the paper's framing, but the denoising procedure generating it is not described.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Interaction-Aware and Causality-Disentangled Framework for Multimodal Sentiment Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ARSI5STW

@misc{pith2026260530994,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Interaction-Aware and Causality-Disentangled Framework for Multimodal Sentiment Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ARSI5STW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.30994}
}
read the original abstract

Although Multimodal Sentiment Analysis (MSA) effectively leverages rich information from language, visual, and acoustic modalities, existing methods still face two core challenges: 1) static conflict suppression mechanisms fail to adapt to dynamic variations across samples, and 2) the inherent sentimental bias within the language modality, which can misguide learning from other modalities, remains entangled. To this end, we propose a Dynamic Multimodal Causal Disentanglement and Adaptive Fusion Framework (MCAF). Its cornerstone is the Multi-Granularity Causal Dynamic Router and a Conditional Diffusion Denoising Module. First, we introduce a causal intervention module based on the information bottleneck principle, which builds a Structural Causal Model to disentangle sentimental bias from language features, yielding a "de-confounded" language representation as a pure guiding signal. Second, we devise a Dynamic Multimodal Router that evaluates the interaction states (complementary, conflicting, or redundant) among visual, acoustic, and de-confounded language signals in real-time across three levels: feature, temporal, and modality, then adaptively allocates weights and routes information flow for fine-grained regulation. Finally, a lightweight Conditional Diffusion Denoising Module performs iterative denoising on the fused joint representation to explicitly filter out residual irrelevant information, generating a robust hyper-modality representation. Extensive experiments on the CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI benchmarks show that MCAF sets new state-of-the-art on key classification metrics, achieving an Acc-2/F1 of 86.52%/86.51% on MOSI and 86.72%/86.65% on MOSEI, while remaining highly competitive on others. Comprehensive analyses and visualizations further validate its efficacy in dynamically perceiving interactions, disentangling bias, and enhancing interpretability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30994 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall architecture of the proposed architecture MCAF. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Causality-Guided Modal Disengagement Module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Dynamic Multimodal Interaction Route. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The Dynamic Multimodal Interaction Route. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Convergence Comparison with SELF-MM Baseline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Error Analysis: MCAF vs SELF-MM. V. CONCLUSION This paper proposes a Dynamic Multimodal Causal Dis￾entanglement and Adaptive Fusion Framework (MCAF) for multimodal sentiment analysis. Our key contributions include: 1) a causal disentanglement module that separates sema…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Raft: Robust adversarial fusion transformer for multimodal sentiment analysis,

    R. Wang, D. Xu, L. Cascone, Y . Wang, H. Chen, J. Zheng, and X. Zhu, “Raft: Robust adversarial fusion transformer for multimodal sentiment analysis,”Array, vol. 27, p. 100445, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:280184692

    2025

  2. [2]

    Learning to learn better unimodal representations via adaptive multimodal meta-learning,

    Y . Sun, S. Mai, and H. Hu, “Learning to learn better unimodal representations via adaptive multimodal meta-learning,”IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput., vol. 14, no. 3, p. 2209–2223, jul 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2022.3178231

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Fedc-dac: A federated clustering with dynamic aggregation and calibration method for sar image target recognition,

    Y . Hou, S. Zhao, X. Xia, M. Liwang, Z. Li, N. Xu, D. Wu, Y . Tian, and T. Q. Quek, “Fedc-dac: A federated clustering with dynamic aggregation and calibration method for sar image target recognition,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 19, pp. 3726–3745, 2026

    2026

  4. [4]

    Injecting multimodal information into pre-trained language model for multimodal sentiment analysis,

    S. Mai, Y . Zeng, A. Xiong, and H. Hu, “Injecting multimodal information into pre-trained language model for multimodal sentiment analysis,”IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 16, pp. 2074–2089, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:277238271

  5. [5]

    Multimodal sentiment analysis: A systematic review of history, datasets, multimodal fusion methods, applications, challenges and future directions,

    A. Gandhi, K. Adhvaryu, S. Poria, E. Cambria, and A. Hussain, “Multimodal sentiment analysis: A systematic review of history, datasets, multimodal fusion methods, applications, challenges and future directions,”Information Fusion, vol. 91, pp. 424–444, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1566253522001634

    2023

  6. [6]

    Federated dynamic aggregation selection strategy- based multi-receptive field fusion classification framework for point cloud classification,

    Y . Hou, B. Bai, S. Zhao, Y . Wang, J. Wang, and Z. Li, “Federated dynamic aggregation selection strategy- based multi-receptive field fusion classification framework for point cloud classification,”Computers, Materials and Continua, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 1–30, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1546221825012536

    2025

  7. [7]

    Privacy- preserving federated sar image target recognition with adaptive resource management in space-air-ground integrated networks,

    Y . Hou, B. Yu, Z. Yang, J. Wang, W. Xiang, D. Wu, M. Liwang, X. Xia, Z. Li, Y . Tian, and Y . Sun, “Privacy- preserving federated sar image target recognition with adaptive resource management in space-air-ground integrated networks,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 177, p. 113253, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:285457128

    2026

  8. [8]

    Multimodal sentiment anal- ysis: A survey,

    S. Lai, X. Hu, H. Xu, Z. Ren, and Z. Liu, “Multimodal sentiment anal- ysis: A survey,”Displays, vol. 80, p. 102563, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141938223001968

    2023

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Tensor fusion network for multimodal sentiment analysis,

    A. Zadeh, M. Chen, S. Poria, E. Cambria, and L.-P. Morency, “Tensor fusion network for multimodal sentiment analysis,” inConference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:950292

    2017

  2. [10]

    Efficient low-rank multimodal fusion with modality-specific factors,

    Z. Liu, Y . Shen, V . B. Lakshminarasimhan, P. P. Liang, A. Zadeh, and L.-P. Morency, “Efficient low-rank multimodal fusion with modality-specific factors,” inAnnual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticschola...

    2018

  3. [11]

    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 conference. Association for computational linguistics. Meeting, vol. 2019. NIH Public Access, 2019...

    2019

  4. [12]

    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, 2020, pp. 1122–1131

    2020

  5. [13]

    Learning modality-specific representations with self-supervised multi-task learning for multimodal sentiment analysis,

    W. Yu, H. Xu, Z. Yuan, and J. Wu, “Learning modality-specific representations with self-supervised multi-task learning for multimodal sentiment analysis,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 35, no. 12, 2021, pp. 10 790–10 797

    2021

  6. [14]

    Improving multimodal fusion with hierarchical mutual information maximization for multimodal sentiment analysis,

    W. Han, H. Chen, and S. Poria, “Improving multimodal fusion with hierarchical mutual information maximization for multimodal sentiment analysis,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2109.00412, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:237372185

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Smil: Multimodal learning with severely missing modality,

    M. Ma, J. Ren, L. Zhao, S. Tulyakov, C. Wu, and X. Peng, “Smil: Multimodal learning with severely missing modality,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2103.05677, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:232170317

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A unimodal valence-arousal driven contrastive learning framework for multimodal multi-label emotion recognition,

    W. Zheng, J. Yu, and R. Xia, “A unimodal valence-arousal driven contrastive learning framework for multimodal multi-label emotion recognition,” inProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, ser. MM ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Mach...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Kd-msa: A multimodal implicit sentiment analysis approach based on kan and asymmetric contribution-aware dynamic fusion,

    Z. Hou, Q. Zhang, Z. Lei, Z. Zeng, and R. Jia, “Kd-msa: A multimodal implicit sentiment analysis approach based on kan and asymmetric contribution-aware dynamic fusion,”Symmetry, vol. 17, no. 9, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/17/9/1401

    2025

  10. [18]

    Confidence- aware self-distillation for multimodal sentiment analysis with incomplete modalities,

    Y . Luo, S. Wang, Z. Xu, Y . Li, F. Tang, and J. Su, “Confidence- aware self-distillation for multimodal sentiment analysis with incomplete modalities,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01490, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” inNorth American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:52967399

    2019

  12. [20]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Multimodal senti- ment intensity analysis in videos: Facial gestures and verbal messages,

    A. Zadeh, R. Zellers, E. Pincus, and L.-P. Morency, “Multimodal senti- ment intensity analysis in videos: Facial gestures and verbal messages,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 82–88, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Multimodal language analysis in the wild: Cmu-mosei dataset and interpretable dynamic fusion graph,

    A. B. Zadeh, P. P. Liang, S. Poria, E. Cambria, and L.-P. Morency, “Multimodal language analysis in the wild: Cmu-mosei dataset and interpretable dynamic fusion graph,” inProceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Pa...

    2018

  15. [23]

    Found in translation: Learning robust joint representations by cyclic translations between modalities,

    H. Pham, P. P. Liang, T. Manzini, L.-P. Morency, and B. P ´oczos, “Found in translation: Learning robust joint representations by cyclic translations between modalities,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 33, no. 01, 2019, pp. 6892–6899

    2019

  16. [24]

    librosa: Audio and music signal analysis in python,

    B. McFee, C. Raffel, D. Liang, D. P. W. Ellis, M. McVicar, E. Battenberg, and O. Nieto, “librosa: Audio and music signal analysis in python,” inSciPy, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:33504

    2015

  17. [25]

    Openface: an open source facial behavior analysis toolkit,

    T. Baltru ˇsaitis, P. Robinson, and L.-P. Morency, “Openface: an open source facial behavior analysis toolkit,” in2016 IEEE winter conference on applications of computer vision (WACV). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–10

    2016

  18. [26]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization,

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:53592270

    2017

  19. [27]

    Tetfn: A text en- hanced transformer fusion network for multimodal sentiment analysis,

    D. Wang, X. Guo, Y . Tian, J. Liu, L. He, and X. Luo, “Tetfn: A text en- hanced transformer fusion network for multimodal sentiment analysis,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 136, p. 109259, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031320322007385

    2023

  20. [28]

    Multilevel information compression and textual information enhancement for multimodal sentiment analysis,

    Y . Zhang, H. Zhong, N. Alhusaini, G. Chen, and C. Wu, “Multilevel information compression and textual information enhancement for multimodal sentiment analysis,”Knowledge- Based Systems, vol. 312, p. 113121, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.