Evaluating the Benefits of Asymmetry Features for Emotion Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotion recognition is a topic of interest in Affective Computing (AC). While deep learning architectures have gained popularity for classification tasks, their reliance on large datasets limits their applicability when data availability is scarce. An alternative approach is feature engineering, which involves extracting relevant features to train supervised machine learning models. Neuroscientific theories on emotion processing, such as the lateralization theory, have motivated the introduction of asymmetry features for emotion prediction. However, none of these studies have statistically evaluated whether including asymmetrical features could reduce classification error or computational time. To address that direction, the current work compared two approaches for emotion recognition. The first approach used features extracted from individual EEG channels, while the second used asymmetry features calculated by matching pairs of EEG nodes. The two approaches were compared in terms of performance and fitted computational time. The comparison indicated that the performances of both approaches were not statistically significant. Notably, the asymmetry approach required less computational time for the training stage. This finding implies that incorporating asymmetry features in emotion recognition models is viable when computational resources are limited, without significantly compromising 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".