Effective Context Modeling Framework for Emotion Recognition in Conversations

Cuong Tran Van; Thanh V. T. Tran; Truong Son Hy; Van Nguyen

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Effective Context Modeling Framework for Emotion Recognition in Conversations

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ConxGNN claims state-of-the-art emotion recognition on IEMOCAP and MELD by modeling conversation context at multiple time scales and through hyperedges.

desk verdict A coherent architectural combination with a plausible IEMOCAP gain, but the MELD edge is within noise and the missing error bars make the SOTA claim unverifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16444 v1 pith:TAGKTLYQ submitted 2024-12-21 cs.CL cs.LG

Cuong Tran Van , Thanh V. T. Tran , Van Nguyen , Truong Son Hy This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.LG

keywords emotionrecognitioninconversationsgraphneuralnetworkshypergraphmultimodalfusionmulti-scalecontextmodelingclassimbalanceIEMOCAPMELD

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 emotion recognition in conversations improves when context is modeled at several interaction distances at once and when relationships among utterances and modalities are modeled beyond pairwise edges. It proposes ConxGNN, a graph-neural-network framework with two parallel modules: a multi-scale heterogeneous graph built from several past/future windows, and a hypergraph whose hyperedges connect all modalities in an utterance and all utterances in a modality. The two modules' outputs are fused with cross-modal attention, and the losses are re-weighted to counter class imbalance. On the IEMOCAP and MELD benchmarks the framework reports state-of-the-art accuracy and weighted-F1, with the biggest ablation drop coming from removing the multi-scale graph module. A sympathetic reader would care because prior GNN methods fix a single context window and rely on pairwise relations, which this design directly targets.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is a parallel pair of graph learners over a node set where each utterance appears as three modality nodes. The multi-scale heterogeneous graph uses edge weights given by angular similarity, $A_{ij}=1-\arccos(\mathrm{sim}(h^\tau_i,h^\nu_j))/\pi$, and several sliding windows $[p,f]$ per branch, so the same utterance participates in short-, medium-, and long-range context graphs; the hypergraph adds a complementary channel of multivariate relations through hyperedge convolution. The two streams are concatenated and aligned by cross-modal attention before a re-weighted loss combination trains the classifier. The framework's novelty claim is that this combination—not any single component—lets the model adapt to variable emotional influence ranges and to minority emotion classes.

What would settle it

Rerun the reported experiments on IEMOCAP and MELD with the edge weights $A_{ij}$ in Eq. (7) replaced by constant weights (e.g., $A_{ij}=1$) or random weights while keeping all other components and hyperparameters fixed. If accuracy and weighted-F1 do not fall, the angular-similarity assumption is not load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that ConxGNN captures emotional context more completely than previous GNN-based ERC systems. Each utterance is represented by three modality nodes (text, audio, visual). The Inception Graph Module builds several graph blocks with different past/future window sizes — $(10,9),(5,3),(3,2)$ on IEMOCAP and $(11,11),(7,4),(6,4)$ on MELD — and applies k-dimensional GNN message passing followed by graph transformers, so short- and long-range emotional influences are learned in parallel. The Hypergraph Module adds hyperedges over all nodes of a modality and all modalities of an utterance, with learnable hyperedge weights, and propagates information through hypergraph convolution. After fusing the two modules with cross-modal attention that aligns audio and visual features to text, a class-balanced focal contrastive loss and a class-balanced cross-entropy loss are optimized. The reported results are 68.52% accuracy and 68.64% weighted-F1 on IEMOCAP, and 66.28% accuracy and 65.69% weighted-F1 on MELD, which the paper states as state-of-the-art.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the angular similarity between two encoded utterance-modality nodes measures the strength of their emotional influence; if that measure is wrong, the message passing in the graph module propagates miscalibrated context and the advertised gains are not grounded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported results hold, fixed-window context modeling is not necessary: parallel multi-window branches outperform a single window by roughly 3% in accuracy and weighted-F1 on both datasets.
If the ablations are reliable, pairwise graph edges alone are insufficient for conversational emotion, since removing the hypergraph module costs about 4.5% on IEMOCAP.
If the re-weighting scheme is effective, class-imbalanced ERC can be improved without changing model architecture, by weighting both the contrastive and cross-entropy losses by effective sample counts.
If the scaling trend with inception blocks continues, adding more window branches is a simple way to push performance further.
If cross-modal attention is doing useful work, aligning non-text modalities to text is a cheap fusion strategy that adds modest but consistent gains.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper does not test is making the window sizes adaptive per conversation rather than fixed per dataset; if emotional influence range varies within a dialogue, learned windows could outperform the tuned grids.
The same dual-module design could transfer to other sequential multimodal tasks such as dialogue act prediction or meeting summarization, where the range of contextual influence is also variable.
The class-balanced focal contrastive loss could be reused as a drop-in objective for other imbalanced sequence-labeling problems, independent of the graph architecture.
Because the hypergraph module's benefit is much larger on IEMOCAP than MELD, the value of multivariate edges may depend on dialogue length or speaker count; testing on datasets with longer conversations would clarify where hypergraph modeling matters most.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look if you work on ERC: the architecture is a sensible combination of known parts, but the reported numbers are not as solid as the SOTA claim requires.

The genuinely new thing here is the combination: multi-scale inception-style graph blocks (k-GNN + graph transformer) running in parallel with a hypergraph module, fused through cross-modal attention, plus class-balanced focal contrastive loss. That particular stack hasn't appeared in the ERC literature before, and the ablation study suggests each component contributes something. The IEMOCAP gain of 2.3 accuracy points over CORECT is meaningful, assuming it holds up. The training setup is also fairly honest: hyperparameters are chosen on validation, and the loss weights are fixed rather than tuned to the test set.

The soft spots are real and they load onto the empirical claims. First, the MELD improvements are 0.19 accuracy and 0.69 w-F1 over the previous best. With no standard deviations, no per-run values, and no significance test, that margin is indistinguishable from noise. Second, the ablation is alarming: removing IGM drops IEMOCAP accuracy from 68.52 to 38.48, a 30-point collapse. That is wildly out of line with every other ablation (4-5 points), and it suggests the full model's performance depends on a fragile interaction or an unstable training regime. The paper does not discuss this. Third, the edge weighting uses angular similarity borrowed from text classification without any analysis of whether it reflects emotional influence; that is a load-bearing assumption, and it is not tested. Fourth, the baseline set on MELD is thin, and no code is released, so independent verification is hard.

The circularity burden is low — the results are not reverse-engineered from labels — and the paper is clearly written. But for a SOTA claim, the missing error bars and the odd ablation are disqualifying in the current form. This deserves a serious referee, not a desk rejection, because the architecture is interesting and the IEMOCAP result is plausible. With error bars, a broader baseline set, code release, and an explanation of the ablation collapse, it could become a solid contribution. I would not cite it yet, but I'd bring it to a reading group to discuss the methodology.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes ConxGNN, a graph neural network framework for multimodal emotion recognition in conversations. The architecture combines two parallel modules: a multi-scale heterogeneous graph (IGM) that uses multiple sliding windows to capture interactions between utterance-modality nodes, and a hypergraph module (HM) that models multivariate relationships among modalities and utterances. The outputs are combined with a cross-modal attention mechanism, and the training uses class-balanced reweighted focal contrastive and cross-entropy losses. Experiments on IEMOCAP and MELD report state-of-the-art results, with 68.52% accuracy and 68.64% weighted-F1 on IEMOCAP, and 66.28% accuracy and 65.69% weighted-F1 on MELD.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible and correct, ConxGNN is a meaningful contribution to ERC: the parallel multi-scale graph and hypergraph modules address a recognized limitation of fixed-window and pairwise-only context models, and the class-balanced reweighting of both contrastive and cross-entropy losses is a sensible response to label imbalance. The paper is coherent in its overall design and explicitly states that all results are the mean of five independent runs, which is a useful reproducibility commitment. However, the empirical demonstration is not yet convincing: the MELD margin over the strongest baseline is only 0.19 accuracy points, no variance or significance information is provided, the baseline set is thin, and a central fusion equation is degenerate as written. The architectural ideas are promising and the shortcomings are fixable, but the state-of-the-art claim is not supported in the current form.

major comments (5)

[Section III-B / Table I] The paper states that all reported results are the mean of five independent runs, but it provides no standard deviation, per-run values, or significance test anywhere. On MELD, the reported advantage over MM-DFN is 0.19 accuracy points (66.28 vs 66.09) and the advantage over M3Net is 0.69 weighted-F1 points, both of which are within typical run-to-run variation for ERC models. To support the state-of-the-art claim, the authors should report the per-run results with standard deviations and perform a statistical significance test (e.g., a paired bootstrap or approximate randomization test) against the nearest baselines. Without this, the reported improvements are indistinguishable from noise.
[Section II-E, Eq. (13)] In Eq. (13), the softmax is applied to a single scalar score (W_Q f^τ_i)^T (W_K f^t_i)/√d_h. Since softmax of a single value is identically 1, the expression reduces to C A^{τ→t}_i = W_V f^t_i, which is independent of the source modality f^τ_i. The described cross-modal attention therefore does not perform any alignment between modalities. This is a load-bearing component of the fusion module; the equation must be corrected (e.g., by defining an attention distribution over a set of value vectors, such as all utterances in a window) and the experiments rerun with the corrected mechanism, since the reported results may not correspond to the architecture described.
[Section III-D, Table II] The ablation study shows that removing IGM reduces IEMOCAP accuracy from 68.52 to 38.48 (a drop of 30.04 points) and weighted-F1 from 68.64 to 25.68 (a drop of 42.96 points). This collapse is an order of magnitude larger than the other ablations (which are 4-5 points) and is out of line with the corresponding MELD drop (15.44 accuracy points). This suggests either an unstable interaction between modules, an implementation artifact, or that the IGM alone is doing most of the classification. The authors should investigate and explain this behavior, and report the performance of the IGM-only and HM-only variants, otherwise the contribution of the hypergraph module is unclear.
[Table I] The baseline comparison is incomplete and inconsistent. On MELD, only four baselines are listed, and several recent strong ERC models are omitted; in particular, CORECT is listed for IEMOCAP but not for MELD, even though it is the previous best method mentioned in Section III-C. To substantiate the state-of-the-art claim, the authors should include a consistent and up-to-date set of baselines on both datasets, with a clear description of where each baseline number comes from and whether the same preprocessing and evaluation protocols were used.
[Section II-C1] The edge weight between two nodes is defined as A_ij = 1 - arccos(sim(h^τ_i, h^ν_j))/π, taken directly from a text classification method (Skianis et al. [17]) and applied without modification to model emotional influence between utterance-modality nodes. No analysis or ablation is provided to show that angular similarity between hidden representations is a valid proxy for emotional influence in conversation. A sensitivity study with at least one alternative edge-weight definition (e.g., learned edge weights or distance-based weights) would ground this design choice; without it, the claimed benefit of multiscale context modeling rests on an unverified assumption.

minor comments (6)

[Section II-A and II-B] There are typos: 'modaltity' in Section II-A and 'Additonally' in Section II-B; please correct them.
[Section III-C] The text 'M 3Net [21]' refers to the M3Net baseline, but reference [21] is the class-balanced loss paper; the citation should be [28].
[Equations (18)-(19)] The notation w_c(j) is confusing because j indexes utterances, not classes. Use a class-indexed weight such as w_{c(y_j)} or define c(j) as the class of utterance j.
[Table III] The text says 'the best average results' but Table III shows multiple rows per number of blocks without explaining whether these are independent runs, different configurations, or random seeds. Clarify the meaning of the rows and report mean ± standard deviation.
[Section I] The abbreviation 'SOTA' is used without expansion; define it at first use.
[Overall] The paper does not mention code availability. Providing code and preprocessed features would materially improve reproducibility, especially given the small reported margins.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the SOTA accuracy/F1 claims are grounded in external benchmark comparisons, with only non-load-bearing methodological self-citations to CORECT [10].

full rationale

No circular step is present. The paper's central claim is an empirical accuracy/F1 result on IEMOCAP and MELD (Table I), obtained by training ConxGNN and comparing it with published baselines; the target numbers are not used anywhere as an input to the model or the objectives. The graph edge weight Aij = 1 - arccos(sim(h_tau_i, h_nu_j))/pi (Section II-C1) is an architectural definition taken from a text-classification method [17], and the class-balanced weights wc(i) = (1 - beta)/(1 - beta^n_i) are computed from training-label counts, not from the test predictions. Hyperparameters, including the IGM window sizes and layer counts, are explicitly set using the validation set (Section III-B). The only self-citations are methodological: the unimodal encoder and the IEMOCAP split follow the authors' prior CORECT work [10]; these choices do not supply the reported improvement, and CORECT is included in Table I as an external baseline that ConxGNN is compared against. Separately, the SOTA claim would be more convincing with variance or significance statistics, since Section III-B only reports means over five runs and the MELD accuracy margin over MM-DFN is 0.19 points, and the 30-point IGM ablation drop warrants robustness scrutiny; these are correctness and reporting concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several modeling assumptions (angular similarity edge weights, fixed sliding windows, hypergraph construction) and on tuned hyperparameters (beta, mu, window sizes, layer counts). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

beta (class-balance exponent) = 0.999
Controls the effective number of samples weighting in the loss; tuned on validation set (Section III-B).
mu (loss weight) = 0.8
Balances cross-entropy and contrastive losses; tuned on validation set (Equation 20, Section III-B).
IGM window sizes = IEMOCAP: [(10,9),(5,3),(3,2)]; MELD: [(11,11),(7,4),(6,4)]
Multi-scale sliding windows selected via validation set per dataset (Section III-B).
Number of IGM layers = 2
Layer count for inception graph module, set using validation set (Section III-B).
Number of HM layers = 4
Layer count for hypergraph module, set using validation set (Section III-B).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Angular similarity edge weighting Aij = 1 - arccos(sim)/pi is an appropriate measure of emotional interaction strength.
Invoked in Eq. (7) via Aji; no justification given for applying a text-graph weighting to multimodal emotion interactions (Section II-C1).
domain assumption Sliding windows [p,f] capture the temporal influence range of utterances.
The multi-scale IGM assumes the emotional influence of an utterance is local and can be captured by fixed windows (Section II-C).
domain assumption The hypergraph with one hyperedge per utterance and per modality captures multivariate relationships.
The construction in Section II-D assumes that grouping all utterances of a modality and all modalities in an utterance into hyperedges is sufficient for modeling higher-order context.
domain assumption The datasets' predefined splits and the IEMOCAP split from [10] are appropriate for fair comparison.
Results depend on these splits; no statistical verification of comparability is provided (Section III-A).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effective Context Modeling Framework for Emotion Recognition in Conversations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TAGKTLYQ

@misc{pith2026241216444,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effective Context Modeling Framework for Emotion Recognition in Conversations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TAGKTLYQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16444}
}

read the original abstract

Emotion Recognition in Conversations (ERC) facilitates a deeper understanding of the emotions conveyed by speakers in each utterance within a conversation. Recently, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have demonstrated their strengths in capturing data relationships, particularly in contextual information modeling and multimodal fusion. However, existing methods often struggle to fully capture the complex interactions between multiple modalities and conversational context, limiting their expressiveness. To overcome these limitations, we propose ConxGNN, a novel GNN-based framework designed to capture contextual information in conversations. ConxGNN features two key parallel modules: a multi-scale heterogeneous graph that captures the diverse effects of utterances on emotional changes, and a hypergraph that models the multivariate relationships among modalities and utterances. The outputs from these modules are integrated into a fusion layer, where a cross-modal attention mechanism is applied to produce a contextually enriched representation. Additionally, ConxGNN tackles the challenge of recognizing minority or semantically similar emotion classes by incorporating a re-weighting scheme into the loss functions. Experimental results on the IEMOCAP and MELD benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, achieving state-of-the-art performance compared to previous baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16444 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[17]

Fusing document, collection and label graph-based repre- sentations with word embeddings for text classification,

Skianis et al., “Fusing document, collection and label graph-based repre- sentations with word embeddings for text classification,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth Workshop on Graph-Based Methods for Natural Language Processing (TextGraphs-12), Glavaˇs et al., Eds., New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, June 2018, pp. 49–58, Association for Computational Linguistics

work page 2018
[1]

DialogueCRN: Contextual reasoning networks for emotion recognition in conversations,

Hu et al., “DialogueCRN: Contextual reasoning networks for emotion recognition in conversations,” in Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), Zong et al., Eds., Online, Aug. 2021, pp. 7042–7052, Association for...

work page 2021
[2]

Serc-gcn: Speech emotion recognition in conversation using graph convolutional networks,

Chandola et al., “Serc-gcn: Speech emotion recognition in conversation using graph convolutional networks,” in ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2024, pp. 76–80

work page 2024
[3]

ICON: Interactive conversational memory network for multimodal emotion detection,

Hazarika et al., “ICON: Interactive conversational memory network for multimodal emotion detection,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Riloff et al., Eds., Brussels, Belgium, Oct.-Nov. 2018, pp. 2594–2604, Association for Computational Linguistics

work page 2018
[4]

Conversational memory network for emotion recogni- tion in dyadic dialogue videos,

Hazarika et al., “Conversational memory network for emotion recogni- tion in dyadic dialogue videos,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) , Walker et al., Eds., New Orleans, Louisiana, June 2018, pp. 2122–2132, Association ...

work page 2018
[5]

Dialoguernn: An attentive rnn for emotion detection in conversations,

Majumder et al., “Dialoguernn: An attentive rnn for emotion detection in conversations,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, no. 01, pp. 6818–6825, Jul. 2019

work page 2019
[6]

Ada2i: Enhancing modality balance for multimodal conversational emotion recognition,

Nguyen et al., “Ada2i: Enhancing modality balance for multimodal conversational emotion recognition,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , New York, NY , USA, 2024, MM ’24, p. 9330–9339, Association for Computing Machinery

work page 2024
[7]

DialogueGCN: A graph convolutional neural network for emotion recognition in conversation,

Ghosal et al., “DialogueGCN: A graph convolutional neural network for emotion recognition in conversation,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), Inui et al., Eds., Hong Kong, China, Nov. 2019, pp. 154–164, Associat...

work page 2019

Show all 28 references

[8]

Relation-aware graph attention networks with rela- tional position encodings for emotion recognition in conversations,

Ishiwatari et al., “Relation-aware graph attention networks with rela- tional position encodings for emotion recognition in conversations,” in Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Webber et al., Eds., Online, Nov. 2020...

2020
[9]

Directed acyclic graph network for conversational emotion recognition,

Shen et al., “Directed acyclic graph network for conversational emotion recognition,” in Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)...

2021
[10]

Conversation understanding using relational temporal graph neural networks with auxiliary cross-modality interaction,

Nguyen et al., “Conversation understanding using relational temporal graph neural networks with auxiliary cross-modality interaction,” in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Bouamor et al., Eds., Singapore, Dec. 2023, pp. 151...

2023
[11]

M3gat: A multi-modal, multi-task interactive graph attention network for conversational sentiment analysis and emotion recognition,

Zhang et al., “M3gat: A multi-modal, multi-task interactive graph attention network for conversational sentiment analysis and emotion recognition,” ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. , vol. 42, no. 1, Aug. 2023

2023
[12]

Joyful: Joint modality fusion and graph contrastive learning for multimoda emotion recognition,

Li et al., “Joyful: Joint modality fusion and graph contrastive learning for multimoda emotion recognition,” in Proceedings of the 2023 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Bouamor et al., Eds., Singapore, Dec. 2023, pp. 16051–16069, Association f...

2023
[13]

Multimodal fusion via hypergraph autoencoder and contrastive learning for emotion recognition in conversation,

Yi et al., “Multimodal fusion via hypergraph autoencoder and contrastive learning for emotion recognition in conversation,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , New York, NY , USA, 2024, MM ’24, p. 4341–4348, Association for Computing Machinery

2024
[14]

Knowledge-aware graph convolutional network with utterance-specific window search for emotion recognition in conver- sations,

Zhang et al., “Knowledge-aware graph convolutional network with utterance-specific window search for emotion recognition in conver- sations,” in ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2023, pp. 1–5

2023
[15]

Going deeper with convolutions,

Szegedy et al., “Going deeper with convolutions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2015

2015
[16]

Attention is all you need,

Vaswani et al., “Attention is all you need,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Guyon et al., Eds. 2017, vol. 30, Curran Associates, Inc

2017
[18]

Weisfeiler and leman go neural: Higher-order graph neural networks,

Morris et al., “Weisfeiler and leman go neural: Higher-order graph neural networks,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, no. 01, pp. 4602–4609, Jul. 2019

2019
[19]

Masked label prediction: Unified message passing model for semi-supervised classification,

Shi et al., “Masked label prediction: Unified message passing model for semi-supervised classification,” in Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21 , Zhi- Hua Zhou, Ed. 8 2021, pp. 1548–1554, International Joint Conferen...

2021
[20]

Hypergraph convolution and hypergraph attention,

Bai et al., “Hypergraph convolution and hypergraph attention,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 110, pp. 107637, 2021

2021
[21]

Class-balanced loss based on effective number of samples,

Cui et al., “Class-balanced loss based on effective number of samples,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2019

2019
[22]

Unleashing the power of contrastive self-supervised visual models via contrast-regularized fine-tuning,

Zhang et al., “Unleashing the power of contrastive self-supervised visual models via contrast-regularized fine-tuning,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Ranzato et al., Eds. 2021, vol. 34, pp. 29848–29860, Curran Associates, Inc

2021
[23]

Iemocap: interactive emotional dyadic motion capture database,

Busso et al., “Iemocap: interactive emotional dyadic motion capture database,” Language Resources and Evaluation, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 335– 359, Dec 2008

2008
[24]

MELD: A multimodal multi-party dataset for emotion recognition in conversations,

Poria et al., “MELD: A multimodal multi-party dataset for emotion recognition in conversations,” in Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , Korhonen et al., Eds., Florence, Italy, July 2019, pp. 527–536, Association for Computa...

2019
[25]

Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” 2017

2017
[26]

COGMEN: COntextualized GNN based multimodal emotion recognitioN,

Joshi et al., “COGMEN: COntextualized GNN based multimodal emotion recognitioN,” in Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Carpuat et al., Eds., Seattle, United States, Jul...

2022
[27]

Mm-dfn: Multimodal dynamic fusion network for emotion recognition in conversations,

Hu et al., “Mm-dfn: Multimodal dynamic fusion network for emotion recognition in conversations,” in ICASSP 2022 - 2022 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2022, pp. 7037–7041

2022
[28]

Multivariate, multi-frequency and multimodal: Rethinking graph neural networks for emotion recognition in conversation,

Chen et al., “Multivariate, multi-frequency and multimodal: Rethinking graph neural networks for emotion recognition in conversation,” in 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023, pp. 10761–10770

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [17]

Fusing document, collection and label graph-based repre- sentations with word embeddings for text classification,

Skianis et al., “Fusing document, collection and label graph-based repre- sentations with word embeddings for text classification,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth Workshop on Graph-Based Methods for Natural Language Processing (TextGraphs-12), Glavaˇs et al., Eds., New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, June 2018, pp. 49–58, Association for Computational Linguistics

work page 2018

[2] [1]

DialogueCRN: Contextual reasoning networks for emotion recognition in conversations,

Hu et al., “DialogueCRN: Contextual reasoning networks for emotion recognition in conversations,” in Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), Zong et al., Eds., Online, Aug. 2021, pp. 7042–7052, Association for...

work page 2021

[3] [2]

Serc-gcn: Speech emotion recognition in conversation using graph convolutional networks,

Chandola et al., “Serc-gcn: Speech emotion recognition in conversation using graph convolutional networks,” in ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2024, pp. 76–80

work page 2024

[4] [3]

ICON: Interactive conversational memory network for multimodal emotion detection,

Hazarika et al., “ICON: Interactive conversational memory network for multimodal emotion detection,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Riloff et al., Eds., Brussels, Belgium, Oct.-Nov. 2018, pp. 2594–2604, Association for Computational Linguistics

work page 2018

[5] [4]

Conversational memory network for emotion recogni- tion in dyadic dialogue videos,

Hazarika et al., “Conversational memory network for emotion recogni- tion in dyadic dialogue videos,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) , Walker et al., Eds., New Orleans, Louisiana, June 2018, pp. 2122–2132, Association ...

work page 2018

[6] [5]

Dialoguernn: An attentive rnn for emotion detection in conversations,

Majumder et al., “Dialoguernn: An attentive rnn for emotion detection in conversations,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, no. 01, pp. 6818–6825, Jul. 2019

work page 2019

[7] [6]

Ada2i: Enhancing modality balance for multimodal conversational emotion recognition,

Nguyen et al., “Ada2i: Enhancing modality balance for multimodal conversational emotion recognition,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , New York, NY , USA, 2024, MM ’24, p. 9330–9339, Association for Computing Machinery

work page 2024

[8] [7]

DialogueGCN: A graph convolutional neural network for emotion recognition in conversation,

Ghosal et al., “DialogueGCN: A graph convolutional neural network for emotion recognition in conversation,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), Inui et al., Eds., Hong Kong, China, Nov. 2019, pp. 154–164, Associat...

work page 2019