Should Missing Modalities Always Be Necessary to Repair for Multi-modal Sentiment Analysis?
Authors: Yubo Gao, Haotian Wu, Xiaoyu Xu, Yibo Yan, Hong Chen, Ruoshui Peng, Fei Pan, Puay Siew Tan, +4 more
Abstract
Existing methods for multimodal sentiment analysis (MSA) under missing modalities usually follow a repair-first paradigm. We revisit this assumption and ask: \emph{should every missing modality be repaired?} A per-sample oracle analysis shows the answer is not always: full-modality input is optimal for only a small fraction of samples, and every modality subset is preferred by some samples. These results suggest that adding or repairing modalities may not always improve prediction, and that the utility of each modality is sample-dependent. Building on this finding, we propose \textbf{S}ufficiency-\textbf{I}nformed \textbf{E}vidential \textbf{V}al\textbf{vE} (\textbf{SIEVE}) that turns ``whether to repair'' into an explicit, learnable decision at the sample level. SIEVE compares a direct prediction branch with a repair branch, derives an empirical sufficiency signal from their per-sample loss gap, and routes each input through an evidential gate that jointly models sufficiency and its epistemic uncertainty. SIEVE is repair-agnostic: it operates as a plug-and-play decision on top of any explicit or implicit repair module, without modifying its internal design. Experiments on CMU-MOSI and IEMOCAP show that SIEVE consistently improves representative repair backbones across evaluated missing rates, and approaches the per-sample dual-branch achievable optimum.
Multimodal sentiment analysis relies on textual, acoustic, and visual signals, yet real-world data often suffer from modality missing and quality imbalance. Existing methods generate features for modality missing from available ones, but differences in expression mechanisms and sentiment dynamics across modalities may cause the generated features to deviate from true distributions and mislead prediction. In addition, unreliable modalities may dominate fusion, resulting in representation shift across modality combinations and unstable sentiment representations. To address these challenges, we propose a two-level reference alignment framework. The framework introduces stable references at the feature representation and sentiment decision levels to improve robustness under modality missing. First-level reference alignment leverages complete-modality samples to constrain representations and align different modality combinations into a shared sentiment space. Second-level reference alignment enforces cross-modal consistency at the decision level by suppressing unreliable modalities through prototype retrieval and voting. As a result, the framework maintains stable and reliable sentiment predictions under diverse missing-modality patterns. Experiments on CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI show consistent improvements across various missing-modality settings. Under full-modality input, the proposed method achieves state-of-the-art performance, with ACC of 86.28% and 85.88%, and F1 of 86.24% and 85.86%.
Multimodal Sentiment Analysis (MSA) integrates text, audio, and vision to infer human affect, yet real-world multimodal observations are often incomplete. Existing methods for incomplete-observation MSA mainly follow two paradigms. Reconstruction-based methods recover missing information from observed modalities, while joint-representation methods learn directly from incomplete inputs. Although effective, these methods usually treat modality reliability only implicitly within representation learning or fusion design rather than modeling it explicitly. We argue that modality reliability is a central variable in incomplete-observation settings. Failure to model it explicitly gives rise to two related issues. The first is reliability mismatch, in which the affective evidence retained by each modality varies across samples and missing rates. The second is reliability propagation bias, in which messages from degraded modalities may adversely affect cross-modal interaction and predictive performance. To address these issues, we propose MRCF, a Modality Reliability-Calibrated Framework for MSA with incomplete observations. MRCF contains a Reliability-Aware Branch that estimates sample-specific modality reliability from intramodal quality cues and cross-modal semantic consistency, a Reliability-Guided Interaction Branch that uses the estimated scores to modulate cross-modal information flow, and a Reliability-Calibrated Fusion Module that integrates reliability and semantic cues for final prediction. Experiments on CMU-MOSI, CMU-MOSEI, and CH-SIMS show that MRCF achieves strong performance under standard incomplete-observation protocols. Further analyses provide evidence that explicit reliability modeling helps mitigate reliability mismatch and reliability propagation bias during interaction and fusion.
Recent multimodal sentiment analysis studies increasingly adopt text-centric fusion approaches to exploit the rich sentiment information inherent in the textual modality. However, these approaches often suffer from performance degradation during inference due to partially missing or noisy data in real-world scenarios, especially when sentiment-related cues are missing. To address this issue, we introduce a new completeness estimation approach that quantifies the degree of sentiment-relevant information preserved in incomplete data to guide the reconstruction of missing semantics. Furthermore, we propose a training strategy that stabilizes multi-task learning while jointly optimizing sentiment prediction and completeness estimation. Extensive experiments and in-depth analyses on three benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed approach enables more accurate semantic reconstruction, leading to more precise sentiment prediction.