Cited by 1,433Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningSpeech and dialogue systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Multimodal Language Analysis in the Wild: CMU-MOSEI Dataset and Interpretable Dynamic Fusion Graph

Open access
Bagher Zadeh, AmirAli, Liang, Paul Pu, Poria, Soujanya, Cambria, Erik, Morency, Louis-Philippe·2018·Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

AmirAli Bagher Zadeh, Paul Pu Liang, Soujanya Poria, Erik Cambria, Louis-Philippe Morency. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2018.

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 · 10.18653/v1/p18-1208

Cites

62 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The diversity of topics of videos in CMUMOSEI, displayed as a word cloud. Larger words indicate more videos from that topic. The most frequent 3 topics are reviews (16.2%), debate (2.9%) and consulting (1.8%) while the remaining topics are almost uniformly distributed.
Figure 1 The diversity of topics of videos in CMUMOSEI, displayed as a word cloud. Larger words indicate more videos from that topic. The most frequent 3 topics are reviews (16.2%), debate (2.9%) and consulting (1.8%) while the remaining topics are almost uniformly distributed.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Distribution of sentiment and emotions in the CMU-MOSEI dataset. The distribution shows a natural skew towards more frequently used emotions. However, the least frequent emotion, fear, still has 1,900 data points which is an acceptable number for machine learning studies.
Figure 2 Distribution of sentiment and emotions in the CMU-MOSEI dataset. The distribution shows a natural skew towards more frequently used emotions. However, the least frequent emotion, fear, still has 1,900 data points which is an acceptable number for machine learning studies.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 The structure of Dynamic Fusion Graph (DFG) for three modalities of {( l ) anguage, ( v ) ision, ( a ) coustic } . Dashed lines in DFG show the dynamic connections between vertices controlled by the efficacies ( α ).
Figure 3 The structure of Dynamic Fusion Graph (DFG) for three modalities of {( l ) anguage, ( v ) ision, ( a ) coustic } . Dashed lines in DFG show the dynamic connections between vertices controlled by the efficacies ( α ).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 The overview of Graph Memory Fusion Network (Graph-MFN) pipeline. Graph-MFN replaces the fusion block in MFN with a Dynamic Fusion Graph (DFG). For description of variables and memory formulation please refer to the original Memory Fusion Network paper (Zadeh et al., 2018a).
Figure 4 The overview of Graph Memory Fusion Network (Graph-MFN) pipeline. Graph-MFN replaces the fusion block in MFN with a Dynamic Fusion Graph (DFG). For description of variables and memory formulation please refer to the original Memory Fusion Network paper (Zadeh et al., 2018a).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 5 Visualization of DFG efficacies across time. The efficacies (thus the DFG structure) change over time as DFG is exposed to new information. DFG is able choose which n -modal dynamics to rely on. It also learns priors about human communication since certain efficacies (thus edges in DFG) remain unchanged across time and across data points.
Figure 5 Visualization of DFG efficacies across time. The efficacies (thus the DFG structure) change over time as DFG is exposed to new information. DFG is able choose which n -modal dynamics to rely on. It also learns priors about human communication since certain efficacies (thus edges in DFG) remain unchanged across time and across data points.CC-BY · From the PDF

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 62 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Gilles Degottex, John Kane, Thomas Drugman, Tuomo Raitio, and Stefan Scherer. 2014. Covarep-a col- laborative voice analysis repository for speech tech- nologies. In Acoustics, Speech and Signal Process- ing (ICASSP), 2014 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, pages 960-964.
  2. Devamanyu Hazarika, Soujanya Poria, Amir Zadeh, Erik Cambria, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Roger Zimmerman. 2018. Memn: Multimodal emotional memory network for emotion recognition in dyadic conversational videos. In NAACL.
  3. Julian Georg Zilly, Rupesh Kumar Srivastava, Jan Koutník, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2016. Re- current Highway Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.03474 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 1,003

Metadata

Authors
Bagher Zadeh, A., Liang, P. P., Poria, S., Cambria, E., & Morency, L.-P.
Affiliations
  • California Miramar University (US)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • Agency for Science, Technology and Research (SG)
Venue
Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2018
Pages
2236-2246
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2883409523
Cited by
1,433
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 281 · 2025: 300 · 2024: 266 · 2023: 202 · 2022: 153 · 2021: 113 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 6
FWCI
17.41
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
CMU-MOSEI, multimodal fusion, emotion recognition

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