CONFER: Conflict-Aware Evidence Negotiation for Regime-Calibrated Weak Supervision in Multimodal Emotion Recognition

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07867v1
• Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2026 02:42:00 GMT
• Title: CONFER: Conflict-Aware Evidence Negotiation for Regime-Calibrated Weak Supervision in Multimodal Emotion Recognition
• Abstract summary: graph-based conflict-aware evidence negotiation framework for weakly supervised multimodal emotion recognition.<n>ConFER represents each modality expert as a node with a predictive belief, boundary-based uncertainty, and runtime reliability estimated from historical out-of-fold performance and current-sample uncertainty.<n>ConFER achieves competitive performance, reaching textbf0.873 accuracy on AMIGOS-V and textbf0.854 accuracy on MAHNOB-V under strict LOSO evaluation.
• Score: 2.587219755021037
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal emotion recognition often treats self-reported labels as reliable supervision while overlooking self-report unreliability and cross-modal conflict. We propose \textbf{CONFER}, a graph-based conflict-aware evidence negotiation framework for weakly supervised multimodal emotion recognition. CONFER represents each modality expert as a node with a predictive belief, boundary-based uncertainty, and runtime reliability estimated from historical out-of-fold performance and current-sample uncertainty. Uncertainty-aware compatibility and reliability-directed asymmetric edge weights govern iterative message-passing negotiation, followed by peer-supported prediction readout. Conflict reduction, residual disagreement, and mean modality uncertainty further characterize three regimes---Consensus, Dissent, and Ambiguity---for sample-specific weak-label calibration. We evaluate CONFER on AMIGOS, MAHNOB-HCI, and DEAP under subject-dependent 10-fold and strict leave-one-subject-out (LOSO) protocols. CONFER achieves competitive performance, reaching \textbf{0.873} accuracy on AMIGOS-V and \textbf{0.854} accuracy on MAHNOB-V under strict LOSO evaluation. Further analyses show larger negotiation gains on high-conflict samples and improved robustness to weak-label corruption, indicating that cross-modal conflict provides useful information for both directional modality coordination and supervision-reliability estimation.

Related papers

• CARGO-VL: Counterfactual Arbitration with Risk-Constrained Group Optimization for Vision-Language Models [2.038560872025072]
  Vision-language systems combine images with retrieved text, but these sources can disagree or jointly fail to support an answer.<n>We introduce CARGO-VL, a group-relative framework that optimize matched variants covering aligned, image-correct, text-correct, and both-wrong (A/V/T/N) evidence states.<n>We also contribute XMC (eXtended Modal Conflict), a four-condition conflict training resource, and evaluate transfer on CMC-Bench and Modality-Bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T06:47:46Z)
• Adaptive Modality Reliability Diagnosis and Restoration for Robust Multimodal Intent Recognition [2.2012643583422347]
  Multimodal intent recognition combines linguistic, acoustic, and visual evidence, but individual modalities may be noisy, missing, semantically conflicting, or disproportionately dominant.<n>We propose PRIME, a closed-loop reliability guided framework that jointly diagnoses, restores, and reassesses modality quality at the sample level.<n> Experiments on multimodal intent-recognition benchmarks show that PRIME maintains competitive clean-data performance while improving under missing, noisy, conflicting, and modality-imbalanced conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T11:14:13Z)
• Aligning LLM Uncertainty with Human Disagreement in Subjectivity Analysis [57.78407973423517]
  We advocate uncertainty-aware subjectivity analysis, where models are expected to make predictions while expressing uncertainty that reflects human disagreement.<n>To operationalize this perspective, we propose a two-phase Disagreement Perception and Uncertainty Alignment framework.<n> Experiments on three subjectivity analysis tasks show that DPUA preserves task performance while better aligning model uncertainty with human disagreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T11:52:58Z)
• When Reviews Disagree: Fine-Grained Contradiction Analysis in Scientific Peer Reviews [25.43097618275061]
  RevCI is an expert-annotated benchmark of peer-review pairs with evidence-level contradiction annotations with graded intensity labels.<n> IMPACT is a structured multi-agent framework that integrates aspect-conditioned evidence extraction, deliberative reasoning, and adjudication.<n>TIDE is a small language model that predicts contradiction evidence and intensity in a single forward pass.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T08:20:58Z)
• FERA: Uncertainty-Aware Federated Reasoning for Large Language Models [60.52562148874846]
  We study federated reasoning, where a server improves multi-step reasoning by coordinating with heterogeneous clients holding private demonstrations.<n>The key challenge is that client reliability is query-dependent, while the server cannot inspect client data to determine which contributions are trustworthy.<n>We propose Uncertainty-Aware Federated Reasoning (FERA), a training-free framework based on iterative server-client co-refinement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T07:04:51Z)
• To Fuse or to Drop? Dual-Path Learning for Resolving Modality Conflicts in Multimodal Emotion Recognition [87.22988227382329]
  Multimodal emotion recognition (MER) benefits from combining text, audio, and vision, yet standard fusion often fails when modalities conflict.<n>We propose Dual-Path Conflict Resolution (DCR), a unified framework that learns when to fuse and when to drop modalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-06T13:11:33Z)
• Towards Trustworthy Depression Estimation via Disentangled Evidential Learning [50.22167852149165]
  We propose EviDep, an evidential learning framework that jointly quantifies depression severity.<n>EviDep enforces strict information integrity to guarantee robust evidence synthesis.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art predictive accuracy and superior uncertainty calibration, delivering a robust fail-safe mechanism for trustworthy clinical screening.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T13:27:11Z)
• FACT-E: Causality-Inspired Evaluation for Trustworthy Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [49.65751420291115]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has improved LLM reasoning, but models often generate explanations that appear coherent while containing unfaithful intermediate steps.<n>We propose FACT-E, a causality-inspired framework for evaluating CoT quality.<n>We show that FACT-E improves reasoning-trajectory selection and yields stronger in-context learnings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T15:35:08Z)
• CLASH: A Benchmark for Cross-Modal Contradiction Detection [15.134491772506196]
  CLASH is a novel benchmark for multimodal contradiction detection.<n>It features COCO images paired with contradictory captions containing controlled object-level or attribute-level contradictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-24T15:09:07Z)
• Benchmarking Corruption Robustness of LVLMs: A Discriminative Benchmark and Robustness Alignment Metric [49.393713730706445]
  We introduce Bench-C, a benchmark emphasizing discriminative samples for assessing corruption robustness.<n>We propose the Robustness Alignment Score (RAS), a unified metric that measures degradation in logit-level prediction structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-24T12:07:56Z)
• FaithCoT-Bench: Benchmarking Instance-Level Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [62.452350134196934]
  FaithCoT-Bench is a unified benchmark for instance-level CoT unfaithfulness detection.<n>Our framework formulates unfaithfulness detection as a discriminative decision problem.<n>FaithCoT-Bench sets a solid basis for future research toward more interpretable and trustworthy reasoning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T05:16:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.