Organizations: College of Information Science and Electronic Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310027, China · Zhejiang University Jinhua Research Institute, Jinhua, 321000, China · College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, 310023, China
Multimodal sentiment analysis (MSA) has made considerable progress in recent years. Existing MSA methods mainly learn shared multimodal representations or train unimodal predictors with a common multimodal label. However, assigning the shared label to every modality can obscure modality-specific sentiment, while direct fusion may overemphasize unreliable predictions when modalities disagree. To address these issues, we propose Uncertainty-Guided Multimodal Consensus (UMC), which first recovers continuous unimodal pseudo-labels and then forms a reliability-aware consensus across modalities. Our method consists of two key components: i) Continuous Prototype-Guided Label Recovery (CPLR), which combines heteroscedastic predictions with ordered sentiment prototypes and uses confidence and label conflict to refine continuous unimodal pseudo-labels, and ii) Reliability and Precision Consensus (RPC), which estimates sample-dependent modality reliability from predictive statistics and cross-modal disagreement and combines it with predictive precision through a closed-form consensus solver. Extensive experiments conducted on four publicly available MSA datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of our proposed model.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Cross-modal semantic conflict in two CH-SIMS examples. Text-only and multimodal predictions from EMT-DLFR ( Sun et al., 2023 ) retain the polarity of the textual annotation despite conflicting nonverbal annotations. Labels range from −1 (negative) to 1 (positive). Two CH-SIMS video examples compare independent modality annotations with text-only and multimodal predictions from EMT-DLFR.
Figure 2. Overview of UMC with CPLR for continuous unimodal pseudo-label recovery and RPC for reliability and precision consensus. Overview of UMC, including multimodal inputs, CPLR, and RPC.
CMU-MOSI
CMU-MOSEI
Method
Acc-7 ↑
Acc-5 ↑
Acc-2 ↑
F1 ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
Acc-7 ↑
Acc-5 ↑
Acc-2 ↑
F1 ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
MulT ( Tsai et al., 2019 )
40.00
42.68
83.00
82.00
0.8710
0.6980
51.80
54.18
82.50
82.30
0.5800
0.7030
Self-MM ∗ ( Yu et al., 2021 )
47.67
54.37
83.23
83.25
0.7267
0.7813
54.20
55.87
85.17
85.16
0.5356
0.7690
SUGRM ∗ ( Hwang and Kim, 2023 )
46.21
53.21
81.71
81.82
0.7357
0.7822
53.55
55.29
85.25
84.91
0.5389
0.7560
DMD ( Li et al., 2023 )
46.06
-
83.23
83.29
0.7520
-
52.78
-
84.62
84.62
0.5430
-
EUAR ∗ ( Gao et al., 2024 )
46.06
53.21
83.54
83.59
0.7167
0.7929
52.48
54.39
83.52
83.66
0.5363
0.7590
Table 1. Comparative experiments with the best-performing MSA models conducted on the CMU-MOSI, CMU-MOSEI, CH-SIMS, and CH-SIMS v2 datasets. Except for MAE ( ↓ ), higher values ( ↑ ) indicate better performance. Bold and underlined values are best and second best. Starred results are reproduced from released code in the same environment as UMC. Unstarred results for CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI come from DLF ( Wang et al., 2025 ) . Those for CH-SIMS and CH-SIMS v2 come from the MMSA repository ( Mao et al., 2022 ) .
CMU-MOSI
CMU-MOSEI
Variant
Acc-7 ↑
Acc-5 ↑
Acc-2 ↑
F1 ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
Acc-7 ↑
Acc-5 ↑
Acc-2 ↑
F1 ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
UMC
47.81
55.10
86.59
86.52
0.7067
0.8074
54.73
56.58
86.10
86.05
0.5248
0.7761
w/o CPLR
40.23
51.60
84.91
84.85
0.7850
0.7742
52.41
55.46
85.20
85.16
0.5403
0.7690
w/o RPC
22.89
23.62
82.62
82.70
0.7511
0.7177
49.24
47.93
81.37
80.91
0.6428
0.6973
w/o CPLR and RPC
24.93
23.91
80.49
80.52
0.7719
0.7006
49.26
47.39
81.73
80.91
0.6265
0.7228
CH-SIMS
CH-SIMS v2
Table 2. The ablation experiments on the CMU-MOSI, CMU-MOSEI, CH-SIMS and CH-SIMS v2 datasets. Bold and underlined values are best and second within each dataset.
Dataset
M
Target
A5 ↑
A3 ↑
A2 ↑
F1 ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
CH-SIMS
T
Raw
27.98
39.45
65.60
66.93
0.4697
0.2071
CPLR
30.28
39.91
62.84
64.97
0.3915
0.3156
A
Raw
38.07
55.05
72.94
72.69
0.3413
0.6217
CPLR
39.45
55.05
71.10
71.29
0.3183
0.6299
V
Raw
38.99
55.50
72.02
71.52
0.3872
0.5861
CPLR
34.40
56.88
73.39
73.10
0.3879
0.6319
Table 3. Pseudo-label recovery on Dmsi . M denotes modality. Ak denotes Acc- k . Raw denotes the multimodal label. T, A, and V denote text, audio, and vision. Bold values rank first.
Dataset
Variant
A7 ↑
A5 ↑
A2 ↑
F1 ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
CMU-MOSI
Continuous
47.81
55.10
86.59
86.52
0.7067
0.8074
Discrete
43.73
51.90
83.38
83.47
0.7533
0.7931
CMU-MOSEI
Continuous
54.73
56.58
86.10
86.05
0.5248
0.7761
Discrete
54.02
54.45
84.65
84.67
0.5575
0.7595
Dataset
Variant
A5 ↑
A3 ↑
A2 ↑
F1 ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
CH-SIMS
Continuous
50.11
74.18
85.78
85.35
0.3632
0.7052
Table 4. Comparison of continuous and discrete CPLR. A k denotes Acc- k . Bold values rank first.
Dataset
MOSI
MOSEI
Set
Fuse
A7 ↑
A5 ↑
A2 ↑
F1 ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
A7 ↑
A5 ↑
A2 ↑
F1 ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
All
Mean
22.30
23.47
78.05
78.13
1.0723
0.7526
47.61
48.47
81.10
80.81
0.6448
0.6988
RPC
47.81
55.10
86.59
86.52
0.7067
0.8074
54.73
56.58
86.10
86.05
0.5248
0.7761
Q4
Mean
10.47
10.47
80.12
81.00
1.6538
0.7594
31.33
30.56
86.01
85.93
0.9327
0.7831
RPC
48.84
68.02
92.40
91.91
0.7184
0.8614
51.50
55.36
90.51
90.43
0.5793
0.8600
Dataset
SIMS
SIMS v2
Table 5. RPC versus the arithmetic mean on the full test set and highest-disagreement quartile (Q4). A k denotes Acc- k . Bold values rank first.
Figure 3. Modality corruption analysis. Normalized MAE is computed by dividing MAE by the dataset’s sentiment-label span. Higher Acc-2 and lower normalized MAE are better. Audio and visual noise uses σnoise=0.5 . Two horizontal grouped-bar charts compare arithmetic-mean and RPC fusion in absolute Acc-2 and label-span-normalized MAE under eight controlled corruptions.
Figure 4. CPLR pseudo-label MSE trajectories. Solid lines show the MSE of CPLR pseudo labels, while dashed lines show the MSE of raw multimodal labels. Lower is better. Line plots compare text, audio, and visual pseudo-label mean squared error over CPLR epochs with the fixed MSE of raw multimodal labels on CH-SIMS and CH-SIMS v2.
Dataset
Confidence
Conflict
n
cˉ
ηˉ
λˉ
Raw MAE ↓
CPLR MAE ↓
Δ MAE
CH-SIMS
Low
Low
142
0.7157
0.0694
0.0497
0.3352
0.3361
-0.0009
Low
High
185
0.7116
0.3564
0.2531
0.4768
0.4231
+0.0537
High
Low
185
0.7498
0.0732
0.0549
0.2605
0.2606
-0.0001
High
High
142
0.7496
0.3031
0.2270
0.5437
0.4583
+0.0854
CH-SIMS v2
Low
Low
336
0.7160
0.0792
0.0567
0.2131
0.2125
+0.0006
Low
High
485
0.7105
0.2845
0.2018
0.3287
0.2983
+0.0304
Table 6. CPLR update strength on Dmsi . The term n is the number of modality-level instances, and cˉ , ηˉ , and λˉ are mean confidence, conflict, and update strength. Both MAEs use held-out unimodal annotations, and Δ MAE is raw minus CPLR. Bold values denote the lower MAE.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5. Fixed-expert fusion performance. Fine and mid accuracy denote Acc-7 and Acc-5 on CMU datasets and Acc-5 and Acc-3 on CH datasets. Higher is better except for MAE. Six grouped bar charts compare arithmetic mean, precision-only fusion, reliability-only fusion, and full RPC with fixed experts on four datasets.
Figure 6. Fixed-expert arithmetic-mean and RPC MAE across prediction-disagreement quartiles. Q1 and Q4 denote the lowest and highest disagreement. Lower is better. Grouped plots compare RPC and arithmetic-fusion mean absolute error from the lowest to the highest cross-modal disagreement quartile on four datasets.
Top-1 (%)
Reliability correlation
Dataset
r
τˉ
ω
ρt
ρa
ρv
CMU-MOSI
69.53
69.53
69.53
0.0633
0.5253
0.4779
CMU-MOSEI
53.34
53.14
53.32
-0.0855
0.3979
0.3978
CH-SIMS
56.46
54.27
56.02
0.2688
0.3534
0.1122
CH-SIMS v2
56.87
56.87
55.51
0.3488
0.2244
0.2732
Appendix
Table 7. RPC signal analysis. Top-1 measures whether the largest reliability r , normalized precision τˉ , or final weight ω selects the lowest-error expert. The term ρk is the reliability correlation with negative modality- k error. Bold and underlined Top-1 values are best and second.
Dataset
CMU-MOSI
CMU-MOSEI
CH-SIMS
CH-SIMS v2
Metric
Acc-7
Acc-5
Acc-2
F1
MAE
Corr
Acc-7
Acc-5
Acc-2
F1
MAE
Corr
Acc-5
Acc-3
Acc-2
F1
MAE
Corr
Acc-5
Acc-3
Acc-2
F1
MAE
Corr
Full
UMC
47.81
55.10
86.59
86.52
0.7067
0.8074
54.73
56.58
86.10
86.05
0.5248
0.7761
50.11
74.18
85.78
85.35
0.3632
0.7052
58.90
77.27
85.20
85.17
0.2627
0.7878
CPLR variants
Head only
46.21
48.25
82.93
82.94
0.7456
0.7592
53.68
55.53
85.36
85.24
0.5407
0.7657
40.92
66.96
80.09
80.57
0.3867
0.6345
55.80
73.40
78.14
78.27
0.2939
0.7456
Proto. only
39.65
47.81
79.88
80.00
0.7522
0.7637
53.40
54.99
84.81
84.72
0.5359
0.7684
45.08
68.71
79.65
80.01
0.3762
0.6176
54.64
74.27
81.53
81.64
0.2772
0.7616
No unc.
41.40
45.63
83.38
83.36
0.7329
0.7818
53.94
54.43
85.33
85.31
0.5335
0.7723
42.89
63.68
78.12
78.20
0.3738
0.6300
56.67
75.73
81.24
81.34
0.2848
0.7569
No conf.
23.76
23.76
85.21
85.16
0.7338
0.7541
46.02
50.91
84.20
83.81
0.6232
0.7211
40.48
61.93
77.46
77.69
0.3912
0.6606
50.97
66.15
80.95
81.00
0.2737
0.7475
Appendix
Table 8. Internal-signal ablations. Higher is better except for MAE. Bold and underlined values are best and second. Proto., unc., conf., disag., and sup. abbreviate prototype, uncertainty, conflict, disagreement, and supervision.
Dataset
Params
FLOPs
Mean ms
RPC ms
Δt
Sample/s
CMU-MOSI
2,305
13,080
29.2024
29.8395
2.18%
2144.8
CMU-MOSEI
2,305
13,080
28.0514
28.5647
1.83%
2240.5
CH-SIMS
2,305
13,080
32.2526
32.8795
1.94%
1946.5
CH-SIMS v2
2,305
13,080
29.7458
30.4773
2.46%
2099.9
Appendix
Table 9. Inference efficiency of UMC. Mean uses arithmetic-mean fusion with the same experts, while RPC ms and Sample/s measure complete UMC inference. Params, FLOPs, and Δt report the incremental RPC cost. Latency is the median of 100 batches on one RTX 4090D. Bold values denote the lower latency.
Dataset
M
Target
A5 ↑
A3 ↑
A2 ↑
F1 ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
CH-SIMS
T
Raw
71.55
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.1908
0.9267
CPLR
70.71
99.58
99.16
99.17
0.2000
0.9328
A
Raw
75.73
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.1506
0.9411
CPLR
62.76
100.00
97.91
97.93
0.2335
0.9429
V
Raw
80.33
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.1238
0.9557
CPLR
73.22
99.16
100.00
100.00
0.2226
0.9520
Appendix
Table 10. Pseudo-label recovery on Dmsc . Raw denotes the multimodal label. T, A, and V denote text, audio, and vision. Bold values rank first.
Dataset
CH-SIMS
CH-SIMS v2
Subset
Dmsc
Dmsi
Dmsc
Dmsi
Metric
Acc-5
Acc-3
Acc-2
F1
MAE
Corr
Acc-5
Acc-3
Acc-2
F1
MAE
Corr
Acc-5
Acc-3
Acc-2
F1
MAE
Corr
Acc-5
Acc-3
Acc-2
F1
MAE
Corr
Full
UMC
56.07
87.45
92.47
92.20
0.3338
0.8368
43.58
59.63
78.44
77.92
0.3954
0.4165
58.73
88.30
94.05
94.05
0.2161
0.8749
59.05
67.46
77.33
77.27
0.3043
0.6281
w/o
CPLR
52.30
79.08
89.96
90.01
0.3377
0.7389
34.86
52.29
69.72
70.24
0.4028
0.3114
54.83
85.01
92.81
92.80
0.2270
0.8665
56.67
65.45
75.32
75.23
0.3060
0.5895
RPC
46.86
82.01
88.70
88.17
0.3856
0.7790
34.86
52.29
74.77
73.65
0.3795
0.3595
50.92
81.72
90.76
90.82
0.2733
0.8338
52.65
59.23
71.66
71.70
0.3320
0.5050
CPLR and RPC
43.93
79.50
89.12
89.00
0.4008
0.7684
39.45
55.96
68.81
69.18
0.3890
0.3955
51.13
79.06
89.73
89.78
0.2642
0.8337
51.55
57.04
72.94
72.96
0.3198
0.5156
Appendix
Table 11. Component ablations on modality-semantically consistent ( Dmsc ) and inconsistent ( Dmsi ) test subsets. Higher is better except for MAE. Bold and underlined values are best and second. Proto., unc., conf., disag., and sup. abbreviate prototype, uncertainty, conflict, disagreement, and supervision.
Figure 7. Acc-2 sensitivity to prototype count K , prototype momentum ζ , router target temperature Tr , router-loss weight α , and unimodal-loss weight β on four datasets. The α and β axes show multipliers of their selected values. Five plots show binary classification accuracy when prototype count, prototype momentum, router target temperature, router-loss weight, or unimodal-loss weight is varied independently on four datasets.
Multimodal sentiment analysis relies on language, visual, and acoustic cues, but utterance-level modality quality may vary due to occlusion, background noise, motion blur, or imperfect transcripts, causing conventional fusion to over-trust unreliable modalities. We propose MRUF, a reliability-aware fusion method that combines multi-granularity routing with uncertainty-aware calibration. MRUF summarizes sentiment-relevant representations, performs subspace- and modality-level routing, and supervises modality routing with leave-one-out error increases to estimate utterance-level modality importance. It further predicts modality-wise uncertainty and refines modality gates through inverse-variance reweighting, while modality-invariant contrastive alignment stabilizes the shared representation space. Experiments on CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI under aligned and unaligned settings show consistent improvements over strong baselines, and mechanism analysis verifies that modalities with higher predicted uncertainty receive lower fusion weights.
Haoran Ma, Yinfeng Yu, Liejun Wang
School of Computer Science and Technology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China. · Joint International Research Laboratory of Silk Road Multilingual Cognitive Computing. · Xinjiang Multimodal Intelligent Processing and Information Security Engineering Technology Research Center. +2
Multimodal sentiment analysis (MSA) aims to predict human sentiments by integrating signals from different modalities such as text, video, and audio. However, raw multimodal sequences often suffer from semantic inconsistency--exhibiting redundancy or conflicts within and across modalities--which hinders robust understanding and increases computational cost. To this end, we introduce ConsMSA, which explicitly formalizes semantic distribution consistency across both intra- and inter-modality, providing a consistency-aware mechanism for robust and efficient multimodal sentiment prediction. Specifically, ConsMSA projects multimodal token features into a shared sentiment space to compute an Intra- and Inter-modality Consistency Score (I2CS). By coupling this score with predictive relevance, we formulate consistency-aware importance signals that are utilized: (i) as a consistency regularizer to align latent distributions during training, (ii) to derive semantic-aware weights for adaptive multimodal token reweighting, and (iii) as a practical criterion to prune redundant or conflicting tokens. Extensive experiments on CMU-MOSI, CMU-MOSEI, and CH-SIMS demonstrate that ConsMSA achieves state-of-the-art performance while remaining robust under aggressive token compression--retaining only 10% of tokens yields comparable accuracy. These results establish semantic distribution consistency as a promising foundation for synergizing predictive robustness with computational efficiency.
Pan Wang, Lipeng Ke, Huajun Ying +5
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA · Amazon, Sunnyvale, USA
Recent research on Multimodal Sentiment Analysis (MSA) has focused on learning from language, visual, and acoustic modalities with incomplete data to infer human sentiment. Most studies typically compensate for missing information by reconstructing modality features or designing complicated fusion mechanisms. However, these methods still suffer from spurious generation and noisy guidance due to the lack of high-level semantic grounding in partially observed multimodal evidence. To address these issues, we propose SemMSA, a latent semantic-aided framework that constructs rich sentiment-relevant semantics with LLMs, fully integrating with all modalities via anchor-free spectral alignment. It mainly consists of Cross-modal Semantic Refinement (CSR) and Cross-modal Spectral Alignment (CSA). Specifically, CSR first adaptively extracts visual and acoustic representations by corresponding adapters to form a unified multimodal prefix with language in the frozen LLM embedding space. It then iteratively produces continuous discriminative semantic states through a token-efficient latent refinement process without decoding explicit text. Next, CSA simultaneously aligns the refined semantics with all modalities by enhancing the dominant spectral component of their kernel Gram matrix. This captures global nonlinear dependencies among all representations without relying on a predefined anchor modality. In addition, an instance-level spectral separation constraint preserves cross-sample discriminability and mitigates representation collapse. Extensive experiments on SIMS, MOSI, and MOSEI benchmarks demonstrate that SemMSA achieves state-of-the-art performance.
Wenhao Li, Zhibin Wu, Chong Xiao +1
Software School, Shandong University · Shenzhen Loop Area Institute