Exploring the Boundaries of Semi-Supervised Facial Expression Recognition Using In-Distribution, Out-of-Distribution, and Unconstrained Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning-based methods have been the key driving force behind much of the recent success of facial expression recognition (FER) systems. However, the need for large amounts of labelled data remains a challenge. Semi-supervised learning offers a way to overcome this limitation, allowing models to learn from a small amount of labelled data along with a large unlabelled dataset. While semi-supervised learning has shown promise in FER, most current methods from general computer vision literature have not been explored in the context of FER. In this work, we present a comprehensive study on 11 of the most recent semi-supervised methods, in the context of FER, namely Pi-model, Pseudo-label, Mean Teacher, VAT, UDA, MixMatch, ReMixMatch, FlexMatch, CoMatch, and CCSSL. Our investigation covers semi-supervised learning from in-distribution, out-of-distribution, unconstrained, and very small unlabelled data. Our evaluation includes five FER datasets plus one large face dataset for unconstrained learning. Our results demonstrate that FixMatch consistently achieves better performance on in-distribution unlabelled data, while ReMixMatch stands out among all methods for out-of-distribution, unconstrained, and scarce unlabelled data scenarios. Another significant observation is that with an equal number of labelled samples, semi-supervised learning delivers a considerable improvement over supervised learning, regardless of whether the unlabelled data is in-distribution, out-of-distribution, or unconstrained. We also conduct sensitivity analyses on critical hyper-parameters for the two best methods of each setting.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".