Analysis of Semi-Supervised Methods for Facial Expression Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training deep neural networks for image recognition often requires large-scale human annotated data. To reduce the reliance of deep neural solutions on labeled data, state-of-the-art semi-supervised methods have been proposed in the literature. Nonetheless, the use of such semi-supervised methods has been quite rare in the field of facial expression recognition (FER). In this paper, we present a comprehensive study on recently proposed state-of-the-art semi-supervised learning methods in the context of FER. We conduct comparative study on eight semi-supervised learning methods, namely Pi-Model, Pseudo-label, Mean-Teacher, VAT, MixMatch, ReMixMatch, UDA, and FixMatch, on three FER datasets (FER13, RAF-DB, and AffectNet), when various amounts of labeled samples are used. We also compare the performance of these methods against fully-supervised training. Our study shows that when training existing semi-supervised methods on as little as 250 labeled samples per class can yield comparable performances to that of fully-supervised methods trained on the full labeled datasets. To facilitate further research in this area, we make our code publicly available at: https://github.com/ShuvenduRoy/SSL_FER.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.039 | 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".