MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297939181 · doi:10.1109/taffc.2022.3210441

PARSE: Pairwise Alignment of Representations in Semi-Supervised EEG Learning for Emotion Recognition

2022· article· en· W4297939181 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Affective Computing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairwise comparisonArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceParsingPattern recognition (psychology)Labeled dataValence (chemistry)Representation (politics)Natural language processingElectroencephalographySpeech recognitionMachine learningPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose pairwise alignment of representations for semi-supervised Electroencephalogram (EEG) learning (PARSE), a novel semi-supervised architecture for learning reliable EEG representations for emotion recognition. To reduce the potential distribution mismatch between large amounts of unlabeled data and a limited number of labeled data, PARSE uses pairwise representation alignment. First, our model performs data augmentation followed by label guessing for large amounts of original and augmented unlabeled data. The model is then followed by sharpening the guessed labels and convex combinations of the unlabeled and labeled data. Finally, it performs representation alignment and emotion classification. To rigorously test our model, we compare PARSE to several state-of-the-art semi-supervised approaches, which we implement and adapt for EEG learning. We perform these experiments on four public EEG-based emotion recognition datasets, SEED, SEED-IV, SEED-V and AMIGOS (valence and arousal). The experiments show that our proposed framework achieves the overall best results with varying amounts of limited labeled samples in SEED, SEED-IV and AMIGOS (valence), while approaching the overall best result (reaching the second-best) in SEED-V and AMIGOS (arousal). The analysis shows that our pairwise representation alignment considerably improves the performance by performing the distribution alignment between unlabeled and labeled data, especially when only 1 sample per class is labeled. The source code of our article is publicly available at <uri xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://github.com/guangyizhangbci/PARSE</uri> .

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.275 · 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