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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Overview

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

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Andrew Galen, 2013, Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2013 (JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 1255
  2. Bousmalis Konstantinos, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29. Curran Associates
  3. 10.5555/2354409.2355082 · DOI
  4. Devlin Jacob, 2019, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 1, 19
  5. Drugman Thomas, 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
  6. Kiela Douwe, 2019, NeurIPS 2019 Workshop. Curran Associates, Inc.
  7. Lu Jiasen, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32. Curran Associates
  8. 10.5555/2392963.2392965 · DOI
  9. Peng Minlong, 2018, Long Papers
  10. Rajagopalan Shyam Sundar, 2016, Proceedings, Part VII (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 353
  11. Salzmann Mathieu, 2010, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2010 (JMLR Proceedings, 708
  12. Hubert Tsai Yao-Hung, 2019, Learning Factorized Multimodal Representations. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR
  13. Vaswani Ashish, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30. Curran Associates
  14. Zadeh Amir, 2018, Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, 2246
  15. Zellinger Werner, 2017, Central Moment Discrepancy (CMD) for Domain-Invariant Representation Learning. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 1,001

Metadata

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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › 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