Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

Should Missing Modalities Always Be Necessary to Repair for Multi-modal Sentiment Analysis?

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 ``w...

AuthorsYubo Gao, Haotian Wu, Xiaoyu Xu et al.
Primary categorycs.CL
Published19 July 2026
Last updated at source19 July 2026
cs.CL
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/8fe9c04a-473a-405a-8f85-e7e9c3bb7b1d" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.