MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134153081 · doi:10.1145/3434074.3447218

Developing a Data-Driven Categorical Taxonomy of Emotional Expressions in Real World Human Robot Interactions

2021· preprint· en· W3134153081 on OpenAlexafffund
Ghazal Saheb Jam, Jimin Rhim, Angelica Lim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCategorical variableComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Human–robot interactionRobotAnnotationArtificial intelligenceFacial expressionEmotional expressionSet (abstract data type)Expression (computer science)Natural language processingHuman–computer interactionMachine learningCognitive psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emotions are reactions that can be expressed through a variety of social signals. For example, anger can be expressed through a scowl, narrowed eyes, a long stare, or many other expressions. This complexity is problematic when attempting to recognize a human's expression in a human-robot interaction: categorical emotion models used in HRI typically use only a few prototypical classes, and do not cover the wide array of expressions in the wild. We propose a data-driven method towards increasing the number of known emotion classes present in human-robot interactions, to 28 classes or more. The method includes the use of automatic segmentation of video streams into short (<10s) videos, and annotation using the large set of widely-understood emojis as categories. In this work, we showcase our initial results using a large in-the-wild HRI dataset (UE-HRI), with 61 clips randomly sampled from the dataset, labeled with 28 different emojis. In particular, our results showed that the "skeptical" emoji was a common expression in our dataset, which is not often considered in typical emotion taxonomies. This is the first step in developing a rich taxonomy of emotional expressions that can be used in the future as labels for training machine learning models, towards more accurate perception of humans by robots.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.325
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.111 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207