Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Enhanced Multimodal Hate Video Detection via Channel-wise and Modality-wise Fusion

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read CMFusion claims that detecting hate in videos improves by fusing text, audio, and video through channel-wise and modality-wise attention, reporting 0.823 accuracy and 0.908 recall on the HateMM dataset.

desk verdict A clearly described but statistically thin fusion architecture whose headline gain over HateMM is likely within split noise; worth a careful referee only if the authors can fix the evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12051 v1 pith:Q4ELLZMP submitted 2025-05-17 cs.MM cs.AIcs.CV

Yinghui Zhang , Tailin Chen , Yuchen Zhang , Zeyu Fu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MMcs.AIcs.CV
keywords multimodalfusionhatespeechdetectionvideotemporalcross-attentionchannel-wisemodality-wiseMMdatasetclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes CMFusion, a model that detects hateful video content by combining text, audio, and video through two specific mechanisms: channel-wise fusion, which aligns each modality's feature dimensions, and modality-wise fusion, which learns adaptive weights for each modality's contribution. It also inserts a temporal cross-attention step between video and audio so that synchronized moments in the two streams reinforce each other. On the HateMM dataset of 1,083 videos, CMFusion reports 0.823 accuracy, 0.860 F1, and 0.908 recall, beating the HateMM baseline and four unimodal baselines. The authors' point is that simple concatenation of features leaves hate and non-hate videos tangled, while their two-stage fusion separates them more cleanly, and that the recall gain matters because missing a hate video is the costliest error for platforms.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is CMFusion's two-level fusion: a channel-wise fusion module, a multi-head linear layer that processes each modality's features in n heads, concatenates them, and applies a fully connected layer to standardize and enhance each modality's representation, and a modality-wise fusion module that computes a tanh-based feature score and a sigmoid gate per modality, multiplies them into the features, and sums the three weighted modalities. Before fusion, a temporal cross-attention module applies 1D convolutions along the time axis to video and audio features and uses each stream's convolution output to modulate the other, as in $F'_v = F_v \times C_a + F_v$ and symmetrically for audio, which is the mechanism meant to capture synchronized audio-visual cues. The final feature $F_{out}$ is the element-wise sum of the weighted modality vectors, classified by a linear layer with softmax.

What would settle it

Re-run CMFusion and the HateMM baseline on ten different random 70/30 splits (or report all five folds of the k=5 cross-validation) and compare the distributions of accuracy, F1, and recall with paired significance tests. If the advantage does not persist across splits, the central claim of consistent superiority is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an explicit fusion hierarchy—temporal cross-attention between video and audio, then channel-wise fusion per modality, then modality-wise gated weighting, then element-wise summation—produces a feature space in which hate and non-hate videos are better separated than under the concatenation used by HateMM. The paper reports accuracy 0.823, F1 0.860, precision 0.817, recall 0.908, compared with HateMM's 0.803, 0.841, 0.811, and 0.874, and argues the recall improvement (0.908 vs 0.874, a 3.89% relative gain) is the practically important outcome. Ablations show that neither temporal cross-attention alone nor channel/modality fusion alone reaches the full model's numbers, and sum fusion beats concatenation. The feature-space visualizations are offered as evidence that the fusion mechanism, not just the feature extractors, drives the separation.

Load-bearing premise

The reported superiority rests on the assumption that the single fixed 70/30 split of the 1,083-video HateMM set is representative; with no repeated runs, variance estimates, or significance tests, the 0.02 accuracy margin over HateMM could disappear on another split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CMFusion's reported numbers hold, replacing late concatenation with channel-aware and gate-weighted fusion should improve hate-video detection on the HateMM benchmark without changing the underlying feature extractors.
  • The recall of 0.908 implies fewer hate videos slip past the detector, which is the error that matters most for content moderation; under this test split, the model misses roughly 9 in 100 hate videos versus roughly 13 in 100 for HateMM.
  • The ablation results indicate that temporal cross-attention and the two fusion modules are complementary: neither mechanism alone reaches the combined model's accuracy or recall.
  • The comparison between M4 and CMFusion suggests that using element-wise sum rather than concatenation for the final fusion reduces feature dimensionality and contributes to the performance gain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension would be to run the same architecture on multiple random splits and report variance; if the 0.02 accuracy advantage shrinks or flips, the architecture's practical edge may be smaller than the point estimates suggest. This is my inference, not the paper's claim.
  • The gating weights learned by modality-wise fusion could be inspected per sample to ask whether audio matters more for sarcastic or coded hate while text matters more for explicit slurs; the paper does not analyze this, but its design makes it measurable.
  • The temporal cross-attention between video and audio should transfer to other synchronized multimodal tasks such as misinformation in news clips or violence detection, since nothing in the mechanism is hate-specific.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CMFusion, a multimodal hate video detection model that combines video, audio, and text features. Video and audio are processed with an LSTM and a temporal cross-attention module; all three modalities are then passed through a channel-wise linear fusion module and a modality-wise gated weighting module, with element-wise addition of the weighted modality features before classification. The model is evaluated on the HateMM dataset (1,083 videos) against five baselines, including unimodal BERT, GPT-3.5, ViT, MFCC, and the multimodal HateMM method. The paper reports that CMFusion achieves 0.823 accuracy, 0.860 F1, and 0.908 recall, outperforming HateMM (0.803, 0.841, 0.874) and the other baselines. Ablation studies, case studies of fusion strategies, and UMAP feature visualizations are used to support the design choices.

Significance. If the reported gains are reliable, CMFusion would provide a simple and moderately effective fusion recipe for hate video detection, with the temporal cross-attention and the channel-wise/modality-wise weighting being the main novel ingredients. The paper addresses an applied problem of social relevance and uses a real-world dataset. The authors also state an intention to release code, which is helpful for reproducibility. However, the strength of the empirical claim is currently much weaker than the text suggests: the headline comparison rests on a single, ambiguously described data split with no variance or significance testing, and the ablation results contain a non-monotonic interaction that is not explained. The text/audio modality redundancy further complicates the interpretation of the claimed modality-wise fusion benefits. These issues are fixable with additional experiments and analysis, but they are load-bearing for the paper's central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-A, Table I] The central claim that CMFusion outperforms HateMM is based on a single fixed data split, described inconsistently as both '70% training / 30% test' and 'k-fold cross-validation with k set to 5.' No standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. With a 30% test set of approximately 325 videos, the standard error of a binomial accuracy near 0.8 is about 0.022, so the reported 0.020 accuracy gain over HateMM is within one standard error. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over multiple random splits (or multiple seeds), and ideally a paired significance test such as McNemar's test, before claiming that the fusion mechanism yields a significant improvement.
  2. [Table II] The ablation study is internally inconsistent with the paper's narrative. Adding Temporal Cross-Attention to the concatenation baseline (V⊙A⊙T)TCA reduces accuracy from 0.809 to 0.785 and F1 from 0.847 to 0.827, yet the full CMFusion model, which includes TCA together with channel-wise and modality-wise fusion, is the best configuration. Since the drop of 0.024 accuracy is larger than the claimed 0.020 final gain over HateMM, the authors must either explain the non-monotonic interaction or provide statistical evidence that the differences are not noise. As it stands, the contribution of TCA to the final model is not demonstrated.
  3. [§III-B, §III-C, §IV-C] The text modality is generated by Whisper transcription of the audio track of each video, so text and audio are not independent information sources. This is a confound for the claimed three-modality fusion: the 'modality-wise' weighting may be largely combining two views of the same speech signal, and the reported benefit of adding text on top of audio may reflect redundancy rather than complementarity. The paper should either use independent text sources (e.g., user-provided subtitles or video titles/comments) or explicitly reframe the modalities as spoken content, acoustic features, and visual content, and discuss how this affects the interpretation of the modality-wise fusion analysis.
  4. [§III-D, Eq. (4)] The operation in Eq. (4) is not cross-attention in the standard sense: it multiplies each modality's features by the other modality's convolution output with a residual connection, without softmax normalization or a query/key/value structure. Calling this 'temporal cross-attention' is misleading, and it makes the comparison with attention-based baselines difficult to interpret. The authors should either rename the module to something like 'temporal cross-gating' or provide a clear justification for why this operation should be considered attention.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III-B] The text says 'based on the total fame count' instead of 'frame count'; this typo should be corrected.
  2. [§I] The phrase 'diminished capacity to effectively detection of hateful content' is ungrammatical; it should be 'diminished capacity to effectively detect hateful content.'
  3. [§II, §IV-B] The baseline is referred to as 'GPT-3.55' in the reference list and the main text; this appears to be a typo for GPT-3.5. The reference numbering for GPT-3.5 (ref. [30]) is also inconsistent in the baseline list, where it appears after BERT with a footnote.
  4. [§III-C, Eq. (3)] In Eq. (3), the input is written as Fm in the explanation while Fx is used elsewhere; the notation should be unified.
  5. [Fig. 1] The figure caption for Fig. 1 says 'feature visualisation' but does not specify the technique used (e.g., t-SNE or UMAP), unlike Fig. 3; adding this detail would improve clarity.
  6. [§IV-A] The sentence 'The dataset is divided into 70% for the training set, and 30% for the test set, employing k-fold cross-validation' is self-contradictory, since k-fold cross-validation partitions the data differently. Please specify the exact protocol (e.g., 5-fold cross-validation with a separate held-out test set, or a single 70/30 split).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identified: CMFusion is an empirical benchmark submission whose claims rest on held-out evaluation, not on definitional or self-citational reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is fully empirical. CMFusion extracts features with pretrained ViT, Whisper, MFCC, and BERT, applies temporal cross-attention defined by Equations (3)-(4), and fuses modalities via channel-wise and modality-wise modules defined by Equations (5)-(6). The final classifier is trained with cross-entropy loss against HateMM labels. The central claim, Table I, compares trained models on a held-out split; there is no equation or construction in which an output metric is identical to an input by definition. The HateMM baseline is prior external work [4], not a self-citation, and no load-bearing argument reduces to the authors' own prior results. The ablation and case studies are standard model-component comparisons. The ambiguous fixed split and lack of variance or significance reporting are experimental robustness concerns, not circularity: a small accuracy gap may be split noise, but that is a correctness/statistical issue and not a self-referential derivation. No self-definitional step, fitted input renamed as prediction, or ansatz smuggled in via citation appears. The paper is self-contained as an empirical submission, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on known pretrained extractors (ViT, BERT, MFCC) and standard neural layers; no new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The main assumptions are about dataset reliability and the validity of the cross-modal processing.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The HateMM dataset annotations and class distribution are reliable for evaluating hate video detection.
    All conclusions are drawn from this single small dataset (431 hate, 652 non-hate); if labels are noisy or unrepresentative, the performance comparison is invalid.
  • domain assumption Text transcribed from audio via Whisper can be treated as a modality complementary to audio's MFCC features.
    Section III-B converts audio to text with Whisper, then BERT encodes the text. This makes text and audio non-independent views of the same signal, which is not acknowledged in the modality fusion analysis.
  • domain assumption The temporal cross-attention operation in Eq. (4), implemented as Fv * Ca + Fv, captures useful temporal cross-modal dependencies.
    The paper claims this 'cross-attention' aligns video and audio streams, but the formulation is a multiplicative gating by a convolution output, not attention (no softmax, no query/key/value).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced Multimodal Hate Video Detection via Channel-wise and Modality-wise Fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4ELLZMP

@misc{pith2026250512051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced Multimodal Hate Video Detection via Channel-wise and Modality-wise Fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4ELLZMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12051}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid rise of video content on platforms such as TikTok and YouTube has transformed information dissemination, but it has also facilitated the spread of harmful content, particularly hate videos. Despite significant efforts to combat hate speech, detecting these videos remains challenging due to their often implicit nature. Current detection methods primarily rely on unimodal approaches, which inadequately capture the complementary features across different modalities. While multimodal techniques offer a broader perspective, many fail to effectively integrate temporal dynamics and modality-wise interactions essential for identifying nuanced hate content. In this paper, we present CMFusion, an enhanced multimodal hate video detection model utilizing a novel Channel-wise and Modality-wise Fusion Mechanism. CMFusion first extracts features from text, audio, and video modalities using pre-trained models and then incorporates a temporal cross-attention mechanism to capture dependencies between video and audio streams. The learned features are then processed by channel-wise and modality-wise fusion modules to obtain informative representations of videos. Our extensive experiments on a real-world dataset demonstrate that CMFusion significantly outperforms five widely used baselines in terms of accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. Comprehensive ablation studies and parameter analyses further validate our design choices, highlighting the model's effectiveness in detecting hate videos. The source codes will be made publicly available at https://github.com/EvelynZ10/cmfusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12051 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of feature visualisation with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of the CMFusion Model along with the detailed structures of Channel-wise Fusion and Modality-wise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. UMAP visualizations of the feature representations from audio, video, and text modalities, respectively. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hate begets hate: A temporal study of hate speech,

    B. Mathew, A. Illendula, P. Saha, S. Sarkar, P. Goyal, and A. Mukherjee, “Hate begets hate: A temporal study of hate speech,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , vol. 4, no. CSCW2, pp. 1–24, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    You can’t stay here: The efficacy of reddit’s 2015 ban examined through hate speech,

    E. Chandrasekharan, U. Pavalanathan, A. Srinivasan, A. Glynn, J. Eisen- stein, and E. Gilbert, “You can’t stay here: The efficacy of reddit’s 2015 ban examined through hate speech,” Proceedings of the ACM on human- computer interaction, vol. 1, no. CSCW, pp. 1–22, 2017

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Early prediction of hate speech propagation,

    K.-Y . Lin, R. K.-W. Lee, W. Gao, and W.-C. Peng, “Early prediction of hate speech propagation,” in 2021 International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW). IEEE, 2021, pp. 967–974

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Hatemm: A multi-modal dataset for hate video classification,

    M. Das, R. Raj, P. Saha, B. Mathew, M. Gupta, and A. Mukherjee, “Hatemm: A multi-modal dataset for hate video classification,” in Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 17, 2023, pp. 1014–1023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Hate speech detection: Challenges and solutions,

    S. MacAvaney, H.-R. Yao, E. Yang, K. Russell, N. Goharian, and O. Frieder, “Hate speech detection: Challenges and solutions,” PloS one, vol. 14, no. 8, p. e0221152, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Deep learning for hate speech detection in tweets,

    P. Badjatiya, S. Gupta, M. Gupta, and V . Varma, “Deep learning for hate speech detection in tweets,” in Proceedings of the 26th international conference on World Wide Web companion , 2017, pp. 759–760

    2017

  7. [7]

    Hate me, hate me not: Hate speech detection on face- book,

    F. Del Vigna12, A. Cimino23, F. Dell’Orletta, M. Petrocchi, and M. Tesconi, “Hate me, hate me not: Hate speech detection on face- book,” in Proceedings of the first Italian conference on cybersecurity (ITASEC17), 2017, pp. 86–95

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Understanding and detecting hateful content using contrastive learning,

    F. Gonz ´alez-Pizarro and S. Zannettou, “Understanding and detecting hateful content using contrastive learning,” in Proceedings of the Inter- national AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , vol. 17, 2023, pp. 257–268

    work page 2023

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    The hateful memes challenge: Detecting hate speech in multimodal memes,

    D. Kiela, H. Firooz, A. Mohan, V . Goswami, A. Singh, P. Ringshia, and D. Testuggine, “The hateful memes challenge: Detecting hate speech in multimodal memes,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 2611–2624, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Detection of hate speech texts using machine learning algorithm,

    M. S. A. Sanoussi, C. Xiaohua, G. K. Agordzo, M. L. Guindo, A. M. Al Omari, and B. M. Issa, “Detection of hate speech texts using machine learning algorithm,” in 2022 IEEE 12th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 0266–0273

    2022

  3. [11]

    Towards generalisable hate speech detection: a review on obstacles and solutions,

    W. Yin and A. Zubiaga, “Towards generalisable hate speech detection: a review on obstacles and solutions,” PeerJ Computer Science , vol. 7, p. e598, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Hatecheck: Functional tests for hate speech detection models,

    P. R ¨ottger, B. Vidgen, D. Nguyen, Z. Waseem, H. Margetts, and J. B. Pierrehumbert, “Hatecheck: Functional tests for hate speech detection models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15606 , 2020

    2012 arXiv

  5. [13]

    All you need is

    T. Gr ¨ondahl, L. Pajola, M. Juuti, M. Conti, and N. Asokan, “All you need is” love” evading hate speech detection,” in Proceedings of the 11th ACM workshop on artificial intelligence and security , 2018, pp. 2–12

    2018

  6. [14]

    Exploring deep multimodal fusion of text and photo for hate speech classification,

    F. Yang, X. Peng, G. Ghosh, R. Shilon, H. Ma, E. Moore, and G. Predovic, “Exploring deep multimodal fusion of text and photo for hate speech classification,” in Proceedings of the third workshop on abusive language online , 2019, pp. 11–18

    2019

  7. [15]

    Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks,

    J. Lu, D. Batra, D. Parikh, and S. Lee, “Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Exploring hate speech detection in multimodal publications,

    R. Gomez, J. Gibert, L. Gomez, and D. Karatzas, “Exploring hate speech detection in multimodal publications,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision , 2020, pp. 1470– 1478

    2020

  9. [17]

    Multimodal hate speech detection via multi-scale visual kernels and knowledge distillation architecture,

    A. Chhabra and D. K. Vishwakarma, “Multimodal hate speech detection via multi-scale visual kernels and knowledge distillation architecture,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 126, p. 106991, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    A social emotion classification approach using multi-model fusion,

    G. Xu, W. Li, and J. Liu, “A social emotion classification approach using multi-model fusion,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 102, pp. 347–356, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Modulated fusion using transformer for linguistic-acoustic emotion recognition,

    J.-B. Delbrouck, N. Tits, and S. Dupont, “Modulated fusion using transformer for linguistic-acoustic emotion recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02057, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Detecting fake news on chinese social media based on hybrid feature fusion method,

    H. Wang, S. Wang, and Y . Han, “Detecting fake news on chinese social media based on hybrid feature fusion method,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 208, p. 118111, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Multi-feature fusion via hierarchical regression for multimedia anal- ysis,

    Y . Yang, J. Song, Z. Huang, Z. Ma, N. Sebe, and A. G. Hauptmann, “Multi-feature fusion via hierarchical regression for multimedia anal- ysis,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 572–581, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Visual and textual deep feature fusion for document image classification,

    S. Bakkali, Z. Ming, M. Coustaty, and M. Rusi ˜nol, “Visual and textual deep feature fusion for document image classification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 2020, pp. 562–563

    2020

  15. [23]

    A practical tutorial on autoencoders for nonlinear feature fusion: Taxon- omy, models, software and guidelines,

    D. Charte, F. Charte, S. Garc ´ıa, M. J. del Jesus, and F. Herrera, “A practical tutorial on autoencoders for nonlinear feature fusion: Taxon- omy, models, software and guidelines,” Information Fusion, vol. 44, pp. 78–96, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    “FFmpeg,” https://www.ffmpeg.org/, accessed: 2024-07-24

    2024

  17. [25]

    Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervi- sion,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervi- sion,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

    2023

  18. [26]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly et al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  19. [27]

    V oice recognition algorithms using mel frequency cepstral coefficient (mfcc) and dynamic time warping (dtw) techniques,

    L. Muda, M. Begam, and I. Elamvazuthi, “V oice recognition algorithms using mel frequency cepstral coefficient (mfcc) and dynamic time warping (dtw) techniques,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1003.4083 , 2010

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Squeeze-and-excitation networks,

    J. Hu, L. Shen, and G. Sun, “Squeeze-and-excitation networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 7132–7141

    2018

  21. [29]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Language mod- els are few-shot learners,

    T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell et al., “Language mod- els are few-shot learners,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  23. [31]

    Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction,

    L. McInnes, J. Healy, and J. Melville, “Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426, 2018

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.