Holistic Semi-Supervised Approaches for EEG Representation Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, supervised methods, which often require substantial amounts of class labels, have achieved promising results for EEG representation learning. However, labeling EEG data is a challenging task. More recently, holistic semi-supervised learning approaches, which only require few output labels, have shown promising results in the field of computer vision. These methods, however, have not yet been adapted for EEG learning. In this paper, we adapt three state-of-the-art holistic semi-supervised approaches, namely MixMatch [1], Fix-Match [2], and AdaMatch [3], as well as five classical semi-supervised methods for EEG learning. We perform rigorous experiments with all 8 methods on two public EEG-based emotion recognition datasets, namely SEED and SEED-IV. The experiments with different amounts of limited labeled samples show that the holistic approaches achieve strong results even when only 1 labeled sample is used per class. Further experiments show that in most cases, AdaMatch is the most effective method, followed by MixMatch and FixMatch.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".