Deep Recurrent Semi-Supervised EEG Representation Learning for Emotion Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EEG-based emotion recognition often requires sufficient labeled training samples to build an effective computational model. Labeling EEG data, on the other hand, is often expensive and time-consuming. To tackle this problem and reduce the need for output labels in the context of EEG-based emotion recognition, we propose a semi-supervised pipeline to jointly exploit both unlabeled and labeled data for learning EEG representations. Our semi-supervised framework consists of both unsupervised and supervised components. The unsupervised part maximizes the consistency between original and reconstructed input data using an autoencoder, while simultaneously the supervised part minimizes the cross-entropy between the input and output labels. We evaluate our framework using both a stacked autoencoder and an attention-based recurrent autoencoder. We test our framework on the large-scale SEED EEG dataset and compare our results with several other popular semi-supervised methods. Our semi-supervised framework with a deep attention-based recurrent autoencoder consistently outperforms the benchmark methods, even when small sub-sets (3%, 5% and 10%) of the output labels are available during training, achieving a new stateof-the-art semi-supervised performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".