Cited by 1,073Sentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningEmotion and Mood RecognitionMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

MISA: Modality-Invariant and -Specific Representations for Multimodal Sentiment Analysis

Open access
Hazarika, Devamanyu, Zimmermann, Roger, Poria, Soujanya·2020·Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

Abstract

Multimodal Sentiment Analysis is an active area of research that leverages multimodal signals for affective understanding of user-generated videos. The predominant approach, addressing this task, has been to develop sophisticated fusion techniques. However, the heterogeneous nature of the signals creates distributional modality gaps that pose significant challenges. In this paper, we aim to learn effective modality representations to aid the process of fusion. We propose a novel framework, MISA, which projects each modality to two distinct subspaces. The first subspace is modality-invariant, where the representations across modalities learn their commonalities and reduce the modality gap. The second subspace is modality-specific, which is private to each modality and captures their characteristic features. These representations provide a holistic view of the multimodal data, which is used for fusion that leads to task predictions. Our experiments on popular sentiment analysis benchmarks, MOSI and MOSEI, demonstrate significant gains over state-of-the-art models. We also consider the task of Multimodal Humor Detection and experiment on the recently proposed UR_FUNNY dataset. Here too, our model fares better than strong baselines, establishing MISA as a useful multimodal framework.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3394171.3413678

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • On CMU-MOSEI, C-MIB yields 0.7% improvement on Acc2 and 1.2% improvement on F1 score compared to MISA, and improves Acc7 and Corr compared to state-of-the-art methods.

    “On CMU-MOSEI dataset, our proposed C-MIB yields 0.7% improvement on Acc2 and 1.2% improvement on F1 score compared to the current state-of-the-art MISA [53]. The performance on Acc7 and Corr is also improved compared to the state-of-the-art methods.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Galen Andrew, Raman Arora, Jeff A. Bilmes, and Karen Livescu. 2013. Deep Canonical Correlation Analysis. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2013 (JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, Vol. 28). JMLR.org, Atlanta, GA, USA, 1247-1255. http://proceedings.mlr.press/ v28/andrew13.html
  2. Konstantinos Bousmalis, George Trigeorgis, Nathan Silberman, Dilip Krishnan, and Dumitru Erhan. 2016. Domain Separation Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29. Curran Associates, Inc., Barcelona, Spain, 343-351. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/6254-domain-separation-networks
  3. Randall Davis. 2012. Multi-View Latent Variable Discriminative Models for Action Recognition. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (CVPR '12). IEEE Computer Society, USA, 2120-2127.
  4. Thomas Drugman and Abeer Alwan. 2011. Joint Robust Voicing Detection and Pitch Estimation Based on Residual Harmonics. In INTERSPEECH 2011, 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. ISCA, Florence, Italy, 1973-1976. http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_ 2011/i11_1973.html
  5. Douwe Kiela, Suvrat Bhooshan, Hamed Firooz, and Davide Testuggine. 2019. Su- pervised Multimodal Bitransformers for Classifying Images and Text. In Visually Grounded Interaction and Language (ViGIL), NeurIPS 2019 Workshop.
  6. Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. ViL- BERT: Pretraining Task-Agnostic Visiolinguistic Representations for Vision-and-Language Tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems 32.
  7. Curran Associates, Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada, 13- 23. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/8297-vilbert-pretraining-task-agnostic- visiolinguistic-representations-for-vision-and-language-tasks
  8. Rada Mihalcea. 2012. Multimodal Sentiment Analysis. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop in Computational Approaches to Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis (Jeju, Republic of Korea) (WASSA '12). Association for Computational Linguistics, USA, 1.
  9. Mathieu Salzmann, Carl Henrik Ek, Raquel Urtasun, and Trevor Darrell. 2010. Factorized Orthogonal Latent Spaces. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2010 (JMLR Proceedings, Vol. 9). JMLR.org, Sardinia, Italy, 701-708. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v9/ salzmann10a.html
  10. Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Paul Pu Liang, Amir Zadeh, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2019. Learning Factorized Multimodal Representations. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019. OpenRe- view.net, New Orleans, LA, USA. https://openreview.net/forum?id=rygqqsA9KX
  11. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is All you Need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30.
  12. Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., Long Beach, CA, USA, 5998-6008. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/7181- attention-is-all-you-need
  13. Werner Zellinger, Thomas Grubinger, Edwin Lughofer, Thomas Natschläger, and Susanne Saminger-Platz. 2017. Central Moment Discrepancy (CMD) for Domain-Invariant Representation Learning. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017. OpenReview.net, Toulon, France. https: //openreview.net/forum?id=SkB-_mcel

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hazarika, D., Zimmermann, R., & Poria, S.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Singapore University of Technology and Design (SG)
Venue
Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-10-12
Pages
1122-1131
OpenAlex
W3093051361
Cited by
1,073
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 280 · 2025: 315 · 2024: 238 · 2023: 136 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 3
FWCI
22.92
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education - Singapore (MOE2018-T2-1-103)
  • DSO National Laboratories - Singapore (RTDST190702)
  • RIE 2020 Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering (AME) programmatic grant (A19E2b0098)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
multimodal sentiment analysis, modality gap, modality-invariant representations, modality-specific representations, subspace projection, multimodal fusion, user-generated video, humor detection, MOSI, MOSEI

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review