MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards Inclusive HRI: Using Sim2Real to Address Underrepresentation in Emotion Expression Recognition

2022· article· en· W4312438838 on OpenAlexafffund
Saba Akhyani, Mehryar Abbasi, Mo Chen, Angelica Lim

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFacial expressionPopulationMachine learningBenchmark (surveying)Set (abstract data type)Facial recognition systemFace (sociological concept)PerceptionSuiteExpression (computer science)Feature extractionHuman–computer interactionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robots and artificial agents that interact with humans should be able to do so without bias and inequity, but facial perception systems have notoriously been found to work more poorly for certain groups of people than others. In our work, we aim to build a system that can perceive humans in a more transparent and inclusive manner. Specifically, we focus on dynamic expressions on the human face, which are difficult to collect for a broad set of people due to privacy concerns and the fact that faces are inherently identifiable. Furthermore, datasets collected from the Internet are not necessarily representative of the general population. We address this problem by offering a Sim2Real approach in which we use a suite of 3D simulated human models that enables us to create an auditable synthetic dataset covering 1) underrepresented facial expressions, outside of the six basic emotions, such as confusion; 2) ethnic or gender minority groups; and 3) a wide range of viewing angles that a robot may encounter a human in the real world. By augmenting a small dynamic emotional expression dataset containing 123 samples with a synthetic dataset containing 4536 samples, we achieved an improvement in accuracy of 15% on our own dataset and 11 % on an external benchmark dataset, compared to the performance of the same model architecture without synthetic training data. We also show that this additional step improves accuracy specifically for racial minorities when the architecture's feature extraction weights are trained from scratch.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)Same topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207