PreprintCited by 351Sentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningEmotion and Mood RecognitionHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MOSI: Multimodal Corpus of Sentiment Intensity and Subjectivity Analysis in Online Opinion Videos

Open access

Abstract

People are sharing their opinions, stories and reviews through online video sharing websites every day. Studying sentiment and subjectivity in these opinion videos is experiencing a growing attention from academia and industry. While sentiment analysis has been successful for text, it is an understudied research question for videos and multimedia content. The biggest setbacks for studies in this direction are lack of a proper dataset, methodology, baselines and statistical analysis of how information from different modality sources relate to each other. This paper introduces to the scientific community the first opinion-level annotated corpus of sentiment and subjectivity analysis in online videos called Multimodal Opinion-level Sentiment Intensity dataset (MOSI). The dataset is rigorously annotated with labels for subjectivity, sentiment intensity, per-frame and per-opinion annotated visual features, and per-milliseconds annotated audio features. Furthermore, we present baselines for future studies in this direction as well as a new multimodal fusion approach that jointly models spoken words and visual gestures.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1606.06259

Cites

33 of 33 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 33 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [37]37. Vinodhini, G., and R. M. Chandrasekaran. "Sentiment analysis and opinion mining: a survey." International Journal 2, no. 6 (2012).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 351

Metadata

Authors
Zadeh, A., Zellers, R., Pincus, E., & Morency, L.-P.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2465534249
Cited by
350
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
sentiment intensity, subjectivity, online video sharing, multimodal fusion, video sentiment analysis, audio features, annotated corpus, spoken word

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