Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Personalized Dynamic Music Emotion Recognition with Dual-Scale Attention-Based Meta-Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that dynamic music emotion recognition can be made personal: a meta-learning model with annotator-specific tasks predicts a new listener's valence-arousal curve from one annotated clip, using a dual-scale attention…

desk verdict Sensible new problem and annotator-based MAML task construction, but the one-shot personalization claim outruns the evidence: no inter-annotator reliability check, no null baseline, no error bars, and a few overclaims. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19200 v1 pith:KJLOY3DI submitted 2024-12-26 cs.SD cs.IReess.AS

Dengming Zhang , Weitao You , Ziheng Liu , Lingyun Sun , Pei Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.IReess.AS
keywords dynamicmusicemotionrecognitionpersonalizedmeta-learningMAMLdual-scaleattentiontransformervalence-arousalfew-shotadaptationinformationretrieval
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

This paper tries to establish that music emotion recognition should predict the emotion curve of a specific listener rather than the averaged emotion of a crowd, and that this can be done with only one annotated clip from that listener. It proposes DSAML, a model with a dual-scale feature extractor and a dual-scale attention transformer that handles both short, local emotional changes and the long-range arc of a piece. For personalization it uses MAML meta-learning with tasks built from individual annotators' labels, so each task corresponds to one person's perception and the model learns to adapt quickly to any new person. The reported experiments say the model beats earlier LSTM-based methods on the group-average task on DEAM and PMEmo, and, in both objective and subjective tests, predicts personalized V-A curves better than baselines. If the claim holds, personalized emotional music recommendation and music therapy could work from a single example of a user's reaction.

What carries the argument

The engine is the dual-scale attention transformer: one transformer with shared weights runs twice, once under a local mask with context length $n_l$ and once under a global mask with context length $n_g$, where $n_g \gg n_l$. The diagonal attention loss $L_{\text{attention}} = \tfrac{1}{n}\sum_i [(\operatorname{diag}(A_l)_i - \alpha)^2 + (\operatorname{diag}(A_g)_i - \beta)^2]$ with large $\alpha$ and small $\beta$ forces the local attention map to stay near the diagonal and the global map to spread out, so the two views do not collapse into the same features. On the personalization side, the load-bearing mechanism is the annotator-based task construction inside MAML: each task's support and query sets are clips labeled by the same annotator, making each task one personality, and the meta-initialization learned across those tasks can be updated from one clip from a new annotator.

What would settle it

Retrain DSAML on DEAM with annotator IDs randomly shuffled while keeping every clip-label pair identical, then run the same one-shot adaptation to held-out users; if shuffled-task performance matches real annotator-task performance, the personalization effect is an artifact, while a clear drop would confirm stable per-annotator perception. A second concrete check is to vary the support set from one clip to two or three of the user's own annotations: genuine personalization should improve with more user-specific data, whereas pure averaging or architecture gains would stay flat.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that a listener's emotional annotations are not noise to be averaged away but signal to be learned, and that a meta-learning setup with one task per annotator can turn that signal into a one-shot personalization mechanism. DSAML's dual-scale attention transformer applies two context masks to one shared transformer, a local context and a global context, and adds a diagonal attention loss so the two scales genuinely separate, letting the model use both moment-level detail and the overall emotional trajectory. On the conventional DMER setting the paper reports it outperforms prior baselines on DEAM and PMEmo; on the PDMER setting it reports that adapting the meta-learned model to an unseen annotator from a single support clip improves prediction of that annotator's own V-A curve, with a subjective listening test placing DSAML ahead of the averaged-label ground truth for arousal.

Load-bearing premise

The entire personalized pipeline rests on one assumption: the different labels different annotators give to the same song reflect stable, learnable differences in emotional perception rather than annotation noise, because if they are mostly noise, adapting to a new user from one annotated clip cannot produce genuine personalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A new listener can be onboarded with a single annotated clip, because the meta-learned initialization already encodes how emotional perception varies across people.
  • Datasets that keep annotator IDs become much more useful: the same clips generate one meta-task per annotator instead of one averaged label, multiplying the available training signal.
  • The dual-scale mask-and-loss pattern is not music-specific and should carry over to other continuous emotion regression tasks, such as video, speech, or physiological signals, where local and global context both matter.
  • A single DSAML model can serve both traditional group-level prediction and one-shot personalization, since the same transformer and meta-learner produce both averaged and personalized outputs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the annotator-as-task recipe applies to any domain where raters disagree systematically, such as perceived stress or video valence, turning rater disagreement into a source of training tasks rather than noise.
  • The one-shot claim would be stronger if tested across repeated listening sessions; listener perception may drift over time, which would require adapting the meta-initialization per session rather than once per user.
  • A natural untested extension is to predict a personalized uncertainty or confidence band for the valence-arousal curve, since listeners who annotate less consistently should be adapted less aggressively.
  • The architecture's long-range mask could be combined with a shorter context length on the global branch for very long tracks, trading some context for computation while preserving the dual-scale behavior.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes DSAML for dynamic music emotion recognition (DMER) and introduces a personalized variant (PDMER). The model uses a frozen ImageBind encoder with a trainable adapter to obtain dual-scale audio features, then applies a transformer with local and global attention masks plus a diagonal attention loss to capture short- and long-term context. Personalized prediction is achieved by formatting each annotator's labels as a meta-learning task and applying MAML with a task construction strategy that samples support and query sets from the same annotator. Experiments on DEAM and PMEmo report improvements over CRNN, DNN, MCRNN, and DAMFF in traditional DMER, and on DEAM in the personalized setting. A user study with 22 participants indicates that DSAML-generated curves are ranked significantly better than baseline curves. The paper makes a code and project page available.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful step for DMER: the dual-scale attention transformer with a diagonal attention loss is a sensible architectural contribution, and the annotator-based task construction is a natural way to formulate few-shot personalization for continuous emotion labels. The use of two public datasets, ablations covering each component, and a subjective evaluation are strengths, and the project page supports reproducibility. However, the significance of the PDMER claim depends on the assumption that per-annotator labels in DEAM reflect stable personal perception rather than noise; the manuscript does not currently provide evidence to distinguish these alternatives. The lack of statistical uncertainty and the small personalized test set further limit the strength of the state-of-the-art claims. With additional reliability analyses and a clearer evaluation protocol, the work could be an important contribution to personalized music emotion recognition.

major comments (4)
  1. [Personalized Strategy, Eq. (6), and Objective Experiment, Table 2] The core PDMER claim assumes that each annotator's labels represent a stable personal perception that MAML can learn and transfer to a new user, but the paper provides no reliability evidence for DEAM per-annotator labels. Please report the number of annotators, per-annotator song counts, and an inter-annotator agreement statistic such as ICC or mean pairwise correlation on the 58 test songs. In addition, include a null control that breaks annotator identity (e.g., randomly permuting annotator IDs or replacing the support label with the mean label) and show that DSAML still outperforms it; otherwise the Table 2 gains and Table 4 ablations can be explained by fitting label noise or by non-random annotator-to-song assignment.
  2. [Training & Inference Process and Implementation Details] There is an internal inconsistency in the definition of the personalization support set. The inference paragraph says "we use all samples annotated by a new user p ... in personalized data Sp", while Implementation Details says "both Si and Sp only contain 1 sample"; the PDMER evaluation description also states that the test set uses personalized annotations from all annotators. Because the paper's headline claim is one-shot personalization, the exact protocol matters: how many test users, how many support clips per user, how query songs are chosen and whether they are disjoint from support songs, and whether labels in the test task are from a single annotator or aggregated. Please state the protocol explicitly and rerun the evaluation if the support set was in fact larger than one clip.
  3. [Objective Experiment, Tables 1-4] All objective results are reported as single point estimates without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Some improvements over baselines are small (e.g., PMEmo arousal CCC 0.186 vs 0.175 in Table 1, DEAM valence CCC 0.104 vs 0.055), and the personalized test set consists of only 58 songs. Please report mean and standard deviation over multiple training runs, and where possible paired tests across songs or users, so that the claimed state-of-the-art performance is statistically supported.
  4. [Subjective Experiment, Figure 6] The subjective experiment is a key piece of evidence, but the reported paired t-test p-values are not accompanied by effect sizes or confidence intervals, and no correction for multiple comparisons is described. The statement that DSAML "outperforms the ground truth" in arousal should be clarified, since the comparison "ground truth" in Figure 6 is the dataset's mean annotator curve rather than a personalized ground-truth curve. Please report effect sizes, confidence intervals, and a precise definition of the ground-truth condition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Problem Formulation, Eq. (6)] The notation Di = {(xi_1, yi_1), ...} reuses i both for the user index and the song index, which is confusing; please use a different subscript for the user.
  2. [Figure 4] The attention map panels are not described in the caption; please state which model variant each panel shows and how the diagonal attention loss changes the maps.
  3. [Ablation Study, Table 4] The sentence that the model without MAML but with the personalized task construction strategy is worse than the model without both components mostly matches the table, but the valence CCC is slightly higher (0.062 vs 0.061); please reword to be precise about the direction of the effect across metrics.
  4. [Introduction and Related Work] The claim that LSTM struggles with long-term dependencies is supported by NLP and time-series references; please clarify whether there is DMER-specific evidence or state that the transfer is a working assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PDMER and DMER claims are supported by empirical evaluation on held-out data, and no fitted parameter or self-citation is used to manufacture the claimed predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical rather than derivational. The DSAML model is trained on music emotion datasets using standard supervised losses, and its DMER and PDMER performance is evaluated against held-out test portions. The personalized task construction in Eq. (6) samples support and query sets from the same annotator's labeled songs, but this is a training strategy, not a definition of the test labels; the held-out personalization evaluation uses test labels from users not in the training set, and the paper reports that only one support sample is used for fast adaptation (Implementation Details). There is no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction: the MAML meta-initialization is optimized on training annotators and then adapted to a new user's support set, with query performance measured on that user's held-out labels. No load-bearing self-citations appear; the cited methods (DEAM, PMEmo, MAML, ImageBind, DAMFF) are external works, and the baseline comparisons are standard. The attention-loss regularizer is a training objective and is not used to define test predictions. The concern that per-annotator labels in DEAM may partly reflect noise rather than stable personal perception is a substantive correctness or validity risk, but it is not circularity: the paper's claim is that the method works under that assumption, and the assumption is empirically testable rather than being equivalent to the reported results by construction. The noted inconsistency between the inference description ('all samples annotated by a new user') and Implementation Details ('Sp only contains 1 sample') is a reporting ambiguity and does not by itself show that any prediction reduces to its input. Overall, no step in the paper makes a target result true by definition or by prior self-citation, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All free parameters are hyperparameters of the attention mechanism; no new physical or conceptual entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha = 0.5
    Target for diagonal attention of the local mask in the diagonal attention loss (Eq. 3). Hand-set; no sensitivity analysis.
  • beta = 0.05
    Target for diagonal attention of the global mask in the diagonal attention loss (Eq. 3). Hand-set; no sensitivity analysis.
  • nl = 5
    Local attention mask context length (Eq. 1, Implementation Details). Hand-set.
  • ng = 30
    Global attention mask context length (Eq. 1, Implementation Details). Hand-set.
  • attention loss weight = not reported
    The paper does not state how L_attention is combined with the main regression loss (weight lambda). This is a free parameter not disclosed.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Attentional masking combined with diagonal attention loss separates local and global context
    The diagonal attention loss (Eq. 3) with fixed alpha and beta is proposed to ensure the local attention map focuses on nearby steps and the global map on distant steps, but this is a heuristic not proven or validated.
  • domain assumption Annotator identity in DEAM is a stable proxy for personal emotional perception
    The personalized task construction strategy (Eq. 6) treats each annotator's labels as a consistent perceptual task. No inter-annotator reliability analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption Russell valence-arousal model captures music emotion
    All labels are V-A values; the paper relies on this standard model without discussing its limitations.
  • domain assumption ImageBind features are a sufficient global audio representation for emotion
    The model freezes ImageBind and adds only a small adapter; the ablation shows the adapter is important, but the frozen features themselves are not critically evaluated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Personalized Dynamic Music Emotion Recognition with Dual-Scale Attention-Based Meta-Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJLOY3DI

@misc{pith2026241219200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Personalized Dynamic Music Emotion Recognition with Dual-Scale Attention-Based Meta-Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJLOY3DI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19200}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamic Music Emotion Recognition (DMER) aims to predict the emotion of different moments in music, playing a crucial role in music information retrieval. The existing DMER methods struggle to capture long-term dependencies when dealing with sequence data, which limits their performance. Furthermore, these methods often overlook the influence of individual differences on emotion perception, even though everyone has their own personalized emotional perception in the real world. Motivated by these issues, we explore more effective sequence processing methods and introduce the Personalized DMER (PDMER) problem, which requires models to predict emotions that align with personalized perception. Specifically, we propose a Dual-Scale Attention-Based Meta-Learning (DSAML) method. This method fuses features from a dual-scale feature extractor and captures both short and long-term dependencies using a dual-scale attention transformer, improving the performance in traditional DMER. To achieve PDMER, we design a novel task construction strategy that divides tasks by annotators. Samples in a task are annotated by the same annotator, ensuring consistent perception. Leveraging this strategy alongside meta-learning, DSAML can predict personalized perception of emotions with just one personalized annotation sample. Our objective and subjective experiments demonstrate that our method can achieve state-of-the-art performance in both traditional DMER and PDMER.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19200 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The differences between traditional DMER and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The architecture of the DSAML model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The architecture of the Imagebind Adapter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Attention Map Sequence Predictor In the sequence predictor, DSAML further processes the sequence features using BiLSTM and reduces the feature dimension to 2 through fully connected layers to achieve regression of the V-A values, thus complet￾ing the DMER of the music.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of personalized annotations for the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average ranking of users using different methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Aljanaki, A.; Yang, Y.-H.; and Soleymani, M. 2017. Developing a benchmark for emotional analysis of music. PloS one, 12(3): e0173392

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    CHAKHTOUNA, A.; SEKKATE, S.; and Abdellah, A. 2024. Modeling Speech Emotion Recognition via ImageBind representations. Procedia Computer Science, 236: 428--435

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Chen, Y.-A.; Wang, J.-C.; Yang, Y.-H.; and Chen, H. 2014. Linear regression-based adaptation of music emotion recognition models for personalization. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2149--2153. IEEE

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Chua, P.; Makris, D.; Herremans, D.; Roig, G.; and Agres, K. 2022. Predicting emotion from music videos: exploring the relative contribution of visual and auditory information to affective responses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.10453

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    A.; Kelly, P

    Dingle, G. A.; Kelly, P. J.; Flynn, L. M.; and Baker, F. A. 2015. The influence of music on emotions and cravings in clients in addiction treatment: a study of two clinical samples. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 45: 18--25

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Finn, C.; Abbeel, P.; and Levine, S. 2017. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In International conference on machine learning, 1126--1135. PMLR

    2017

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    V.; Joulin, A.; and Misra, I

    Girdhar, R.; El-Nouby, A.; Liu, Z.; Singh, M.; Alwala, K. V.; Joulin, A.; and Misra, I. 2023. Imagebind: One embedding space to bind them all. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 15180--15190

    2023

  2. [10]

    Grigsby, J.; Wang, Z.; Nguyen, N.; and Qi, Y. 2021. Long-range transformers for dynamic spatiotemporal forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12218

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Han, D.; Kong, Y.; Han, J.; and Wang, G. 2022. A survey of music emotion recognition. Frontiers of Computer Science, 16(6): 166335

    2022

  4. [12]

    He, N.; and Ferguson, S. 2020. Multi-view neural networks for raw audio-based music emotion recognition. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM), 168--172. IEEE

    2020

  5. [13]

    Hochreiter, S.; and Schmidhuber, J. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8): 1735--1780

    1997

  6. [14]

    Huang, C.-F.; and Huang, C.-Y. 2020. Emotion-based AI music generation system with CVAE-GAN. In 2020 IEEE Eurasia Conference on IOT, Communication and Engineering (ECICE), 220--222. IEEE

    2020

  7. [15]

    Ji, S.; and Yang, X. 2024. MusER: Musical Element-Based Regularization for Generating Symbolic Music with Emotion. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 12821--12829

    2024

  8. [16]

    Kang, J.; and Herremans, D. 2024. Are we there yet? A brief survey of Music Emotion Prediction Datasets, Models and Outstanding Challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08809

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Khandelwal, U.; He, H.; Qi, P.; and Jurafsky, D. 2018. Sharp nearby, fuzzy far away: How neural language models use context. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04623

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    P.; and Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P.; and Ba, J. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Li, S.; Jin, X.; Xuan, Y.; Zhou, X.; Chen, W.; Wang, Y.-X.; and Yan, X. 2019. Enhancing the locality and breaking the memory bottleneck of transformer on time series forecasting. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    2019

  12. [20]

    Liu, Z.; Xu, W.; Zhang, W.; and Jiang, Q. 2023. An emotion-based personalized music recommendation framework for emotion improvement. Information Processing & Management, 60(3): 103256

    2023

  13. [21]

    Malik, M.; Adavanne, S.; Drossos, K.; Virtanen, T.; Ticha, D.; and Jarina, R. 2017. Stacked convolutional and recurrent neural networks for music emotion recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.02292

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Nichol, A.; Achiam, J.; and Schulman, J. 2018. On first-order meta-learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02999

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Orjesek, R.; Jarina, R.; Chmulik, M.; and Kuba, M. 2019. DNN based music emotion recognition from raw audio signal. In 2019 29th International Conference Radioelektronika (RADIOELEKTRONIKA), 1--4. IEEE

    2019

  16. [24]

    Russell, J. A. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(6): 1161

    1980

  17. [25]

    Snell, J.; Swersky, K.; and Zemel, R. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  18. [26]

    Su, D.; and Fung, P. 2012. Personalized music emotion classification via active learning. In Proceedings of the second international ACM workshop on Music information retrieval with user-centered and multimodal strategies, 57--62

    2012

  19. [27]

    H.; and Hospedales, T

    Sung, F.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Xiang, T.; Torr, P. H.; and Hospedales, T. M. 2018. Learning to compare: Relation network for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 1199--1208

    2018

  20. [28]

    Thrun, S.; and Pratt, L. 1998. Learning to learn: Introduction and overview. In Learning to learn, 3--17. Springer

    1998

  21. [29]

    Tran, H.; Le, T.; Do, A.; Vu, T.; Bogaerts, S.; and Howard, B. 2023. Emotion-aware music recommendation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 16087--16095

    2023

  22. [30]

    Wang, J.-C.; Yang, Y.-H.; Wang, H.-M.; and Jeng, S.-K. 2012. Personalized music emotion recognition via model adaptation. In Proceedings of The 2012 Asia Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference, 1--7. IEEE

    2012

  23. [31]

    T.; and Ni, L

    Wang, Y.; Yao, Q.; Kwok, J. T.; and Ni, L. M. 2020. Generalizing from a few examples: A survey on few-shot learning. ACM computing surveys (csur), 53(3): 1--34

    2020

  24. [32]

    Yang, Y.-H.; Su, Y.-F.; Lin, Y.-C.; and Chen, H. H. 2007. Music emotion recognition: The role of individuality. In Proceedings of the international workshop on Human-centered multimedia, 13--22

    2007

  25. [33]

    Zhang, K.; Zhang, H.; Li, S.; Yang, C.; and Sun, L. 2018. The PMEmo dataset for music emotion recognition. In Proceedings of the 2018 acm on international conference on multimedia retrieval, 135--142

    2018

  26. [34]

    Zhang, L.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Y.; and Luo, J. 2023. Dual Attention-Based Multi-Scale Feature Fusion Approach for Dynamic Music Emotion Recognition. In ISMIR, 207--214

    2023

  27. [35]

    Zou, J.; Mei, J.; Ye, G.; Huai, T.; Shen, Q.; and Dong, D. 2023. EMID: An Emotional Aligned Dataset in Audio-Visual Modality. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Multimedia Content Generation and Evaluation: New Methods and Practice, 41--48

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.