Annotation Efficiency in Multimodal Emotion Recognition with Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the fast pace of life, emotion recognition systems are essential to help monitor mental health and well-being. The continuous development of the Internet of Things (IoT) and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) improve the availability and accessibility to devices that can capture the facial expressions of a user, while wearable devices can also capture physiological signals and use them for emotion recognition. Meanwhile, machine learning and deep learning methods can provide emotion prediction models. However, the training of the models relies heavily on massive amounts of labeled data. The accuracy of data labels affects the success of the overall system. Research targeting emotion recognition uses the participants' self-reports as labels. However, participants often fail to give accurate self-reports, thus affecting the accuracy of the analysis. In this study, we examine the performance of the self-reports and external annotations for emotion recognition based on visual and physiological signals. Specifically, we use video data, as well as the Electrodermal Activity (EDA), Electroencephalogram (EEG), and Electrocardiogram (ECG) signals collected from wearable devices. We use two machine learning and three deep learning methods to process the signals and train the classifiers. The results show that the classifiers trained with external annotations offer better emotion recognition accuracy than self-reports. Also, the classifiers trained on facial expression offer better emotion prediction accuracy than the physiological signals, and the Deep Convolutional Network model shows the best results.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".