Organizations: School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University · School of Computer Science, South China Normal University · School of Electronics and Information Technology, Sun Yat-sen University
Multimodal Sentiment Analysis (MSA) aims to infer human emotions from multiple modalities such as text, audio, and vision. In practice, inputs are often corrupted by noise and missing modalities, which degrades performance. Existing methods typically address these challenges in isolation, limiting their effectiveness in realistic settings. To address this limitation, we propose a Reliability-aware Cross-sample Enhancement (RCE) framework. Specifically, RCE first introduces an adaptive variational information bottleneck to model modality-wise uncertainty and perform quality-aware information compression, thereby suppressing redundant noise in unreliable modalities. Furthermore, we design a reliability-aware cross-sample enhancement strategy that retrieves high-confidence, semantically consistent neighbors from a large candidate pool to enrich and calibrate current representations, effectively alleviating information deficiency caused by missing modalities. Building upon this, RCE integrates cross-modal interactions with a multilevel reliability-aware fusion mechanism to adaptively aggregate information across modalities and enhancement stages, leading to more robust multimodal representations. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RCE consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods across full, noisy, and missing-modality settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the RCE framework. For clarity, we provide detailed descriptions and definitions of all notations used in the figure in Appendix A .
Method
CMU-MOSI
CMU-MOSEI
Acc7% ↑
Acc2% ↑
F1% ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
Acc7% ↑
Acc2% ↑
F1% ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
MODS Yang et al. (2026)
49.27
85.83
85.96
0.688
0.798
54.32
85.88
86.14
0.527
0.772
PSA-MF Xie et al. (2026)
46.50
86.43
86.19
0.686
0.807
55.00
86.30
86.28
0.521
0.774
DecAlign Qian et al. (2026)
45.07
85.75
85.82
0.735
0.811
55.02
86.48
86.07
0.543
0.768
C-MIB Mai et al. (2023b)
47.01
87.33
87.28
0.650
0.836
52.47
86.08
86.05
0.551
0.773
ITHP Xiao et al. (2024)
46.57
88.40
88.40
0.650
0.848
52.44
86.80
86.83
0.529
0.789
Table 1: Comparison on CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI. Best and Second results are highlighted.
Figure 2: Comparison on CMU-MOSEI under the random missing protocol.
Figure 4
Dataset
RCE
w/o AVIB
w/o RME
w/o MB
w/o CP
w/o HMG
w/o RF
CMU-MOSI
50.22 / 0.589
48.03 / 0.646
50.36 / 0.610
48.03 / 0.616
47.30 / 0.610
46.72 / 0.637
48.47 / 0.626
CMU-MOSEI
55.44 / 0.503
54.60 / 0.518
54.10 / 0.519
53.50 / 0.511
55.14 / 0.504
54.77 / 0.506
55.52 / 0.507
Table 2: Ablation results of RCE components on CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI. We report Acc7 and MAE . Full results are provided in Appendix E.3 .
Dataset
Method
Text
Audio
Vision
CMU-MOSI
HME
46.29%
46.90%
46.90%
RCE
2.60%
5.90%
6.48%
CMU-MOSEI
HME
38.40%
38.87%
38.87%
RCE
10.57%
31.25%
26.08%
Table 3: Training negative enhancement rates on CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Notation
Definition
Xmi
Input feature sequence of modality m for sample i .
Lm
Sequence length of modality m .
dm
Original feature dimension of modality m .
d
Shared embedding dimension across all modalities.
X^mi
Projected modality feature after 1D convolution.
Smi
Sequence representation after modality-specific Transformer encoder.
Appendix
Table 4: Notation and Definitions
Hyper-parameter
CMU-MOSI
CMU-MOSEI
UR-FUNNY
MUStARD
Batch Size
48
128
256
32
Epochs
50
10
10
20
Warm-up
✓
✓
✓
✓
Initial Learning Rate
2×10−5
3×10−5
1×10−5
3×10−6
Optimizer
AdamW
AdamW
AdamW
AdamW
Dropout Rate
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
Appendix
Table 5: Hyper-parameter settings of RCE across different datasets.
Method
CMU-MOSI
CMU-MOSEI
Acc7% ↑
Acc2% ↑
F1% ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
Acc7% ↑
Acc2% ↑
F1% ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
Testing Condition: { t }
C-MIB [ 33 ]
45.69
87.33
87.28
0.644
0.842
51.76
85.66
85.62
0.550
0.771
ITHP [ 51 ]
43.50
86.72
86.71
0.678
0.838
52.40
86.96
86.94
0.541
0.791
KAN-MCP [ 30 ]
45.69
88.24
88.21
0.635
0.851
53.87
86.80
86.80
0.531
0.774
OMIB [ 49 ]
49.49
87.63
87.51
0.632
0.844
53.37
87.18
87.14
0.529
0.786
Appendix
Table 6: Performance comparison of RCE and baseline methods under fixed missing protocol.
Method
CMU-MOSI
CMU-MOSEI
Acc7% ↑
Acc2% ↑
F1% ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
Acc7% ↑
Acc2% ↑
F1% ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
Gaussian Noise Intensity: 1.0
C-MIB [ 33 ]
42.34
85.65
85.68
0.750
0.782
51.07
84.50
84.65
0.560
0.766
ITHP [ 51 ]
45.55
86.11
86.10
0.697
0.822
52.10
84.03
84.27
0.564
0.781
KAN-MCP [ 30 ]
45.99
85.80
85.76
0.710
0.805
52.04
86.88
86.84
0.543
0.775
OMIB [ 49 ]
42.34
83.51
83.51
0.751
0.785
50.36
84.42
84.63
0.562
0.770
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison under different Gaussian noise intensities on CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI.
Method
CMU-MOSI
CMU-MOSEI
Acc7% ↑
Acc2% ↑
F1% ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
Acc7% ↑
Acc2% ↑
F1% ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
Salt-pepper Noise Intensity: 1.0
C-MIB
42.04
85.80
85.80
0.751
0.786
51.93
85.52
85.41
0.555
0.765
ITHP
15.47
42.29
25.14
1.471
-0.030
52.49
85.75
85.71
0.552
0.777
KAN-MCP
48.47
87.02
87.02
0.657
0.835
52.98
86.85
86.90
0.531
0.777
OMIB
37.52
78.32
78.43
0.903
0.691
53.24
86.16
86.24
0.533
0.776
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison under different Salt-pepper noise intensities on CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI.
Method
CMU-MOSI
CMU-MOSEI
Acc7% ↑
Acc2% ↑
F1% ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
Acc7% ↑
Acc2% ↑
F1% ↑
MAE ↓
Corr ↑
w/o AVIB
48.03
87.79
87.77
0.646
0.842
54.60
86.35
86.47
0.518
0.785
w/o RME
50.36
88.09
88.02
0.610
0.857
54.10
87.04
87.04
0.519
0.794
w/o MB
48.03
88.24
88.20
0.616
0.853
53.50
87.18
87.15
0.511
0.794
w/o LP
49.34
88.70
88.62
0.603
0.859
56.06
86.60
86.67
0.505
0.795
w/o CP
47.30
87.94
87.81
0.610
0.856
55.14
87.18
87.17
0.504
0.798
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation details.
Dataset
Method
Modality
Samples
Negative Enhancement Samples
Negative Enhancement Rate
CMU-MOSI
HME
Text
61,400
28,420
46.29%
Audio
61,400
28,797
46.90%
Vision
61,400
28,797
46.90%
RCE
Text
61,400
1,595
2.60%
Audio
61,400
3,621
5.90%
Vision
61,400
3,976
6.48%
Appendix
Table 10: Detailed training-stage negative enhancement statistics on CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI.
Figure 5: Parameter sensitivity analysis of β and Nb on the CMU-MOSI dataset.
Figure 6: Parameter sensitivity analysis of α , λ , and ρ on the CMU-MOSI dataset.
Figure 7: Parameter sensitivity analysis of β and Nb on the CMU-MOSEI dataset.
Figure 8: Parameter sensitivity analysis of α , λ , and ρ on the CMU-MOSEI dataset.
Dataset
Acc7%
Acc2%
F1%
MAE
Corr
CMU-MOSI
49.81±0.56
88.98±0.97
88.93±0.97
0.598±0.009
0.859±0.004
CMU-MOSEI
55.14±0.37
87.25±0.35
87.26±0.31
0.510±0.006
0.792±0.006
Appendix
Table 11: Testing stability with five random seeds under the complete-modality setting (95% confidence intervals).
Method
FLOPs
Memory
Parameters
Per-Epoch Training Time
C-MIB [ 33 ]
11.773 G
8.48 GB
190.93 M
2.93 s
ITHP [ 51 ]
11.523 G
8.36 GB
184.88 M
3.43 s
KAN-MCP [ 30 ]
11.501 G
13.36 GB
184.76 M
10.62 s
OMIB [ 49 ]
11.615 G
8.10 GB
189.05 M
3.70 s
QMF [ 65 ]
12.529 G
8.41 GB
196.47 M
4.09 s
PML [ 14 ]
12.144 G
8.42 GB
188.27 M
3.99 s
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison of model complexity on the CMU-MOSI dataset with batch size 48.
Multimodal sentiment analysis (MSA) integrates heterogeneous text, audio, and visual signals to infer human emotions. While recent approaches leverage cross-modal complementarity, they often struggle to fully utilize weaker modalities. In practice, dominant modalities tend to overshadow non-verbal ones, inducing modality competition and limiting overall contributions. This imbalance degrades fusion performance and robustness under noisy or missing modalities. To address this, we propose a novel model, Enhance-then-Balance Modality Collaboration framework (EBMC). EBMC improves representation quality via semantic disentanglement and cross-modal enhancement, strengthening weaker modalities. To prevent dominant modalities from overwhelming others, an Energy-guided Modality Coordination mechanism achieves implicit gradient rebalancing via a differentiable equilibrium objective. Furthermore, Instance-aware Modality Trust Distillation estimates sample-level reliability to adaptively modulate fusion weights, ensuring robustness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EBMC achieves state-of-the-art or competitive results and maintains strong performance under missing-modality settings.
Kang He, Yuzhe Ding, Xinrong Wang +3
Key Laboratory of Aerospace Information Security and Trusted Computing, Ministry of Education, School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Wuhan University. · Shanghai Innovation Institute
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
Multimodal Sentiment Analysis (MSA) seeks to infer human emotions by integrating textual, acoustic, and visual cues. However, existing approaches often rely on all modalities are completeness, whereas real-world applications frequently encounter noise, hardware failures, or privacy restrictions that result in missing modalities. There exists a significant feature misalignment between incomplete and complete modalities, and directly fusing them may even distort the well-learned representations of the intact modalities. To this end, we propose PRLF, a Progressive Representation Learning Framework designed for MSA under uncertain missing-modality conditions. PRLF introduces an Adaptive Modality Reliability Estimator (AMRE), which dynamically quantifies the reliability of each modality using recognition confidence and Fisher information to determine the dominant modality. In addition, the Progressive Interaction (ProgInteract) module iteratively aligns the other modalities with the dominant one, thereby enhancing cross-modal consistency while suppressing noise. Extensive experiments on CMU-MOSI, CMU-MOSEI, and SIMS verify that PRLF outperforms state-of-the-art methods across both inter- and intra-modality missing scenarios, demonstrating its robustness and generalization capability.
Jindi Bao, Jianjun Qian, Mengkai Yan +1
Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China · Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China