MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

COR-MFS: A Correlation-Based Multi-Objective Feature Selection on EEG Signals

2024· article· en· W4401415382 on OpenAlexaff
Ananda Sutradhar, Azam Asilian Bidgoli, Shahryar Rahnamayan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyCorrelationComputer scienceFeature selectionPattern recognition (psychology)Selection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Speech recognitionMathematicsNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feature selection is a crucial step in the model-building pipeline in machine learning (ML) applications such as Electroencephalogram (EEG) signal processing, providing benefits on model performance and computational efficiency. EEG signals play a pivotal role in elucidating human nature through promising ML mechanisms. However, extracting a large number of features from the EEG signals can be a challenge of efficient EEG processing. A multi-objective feature selection strategy applied to the extracted features from EEG signals can simultaneously improve the accuracy of the process and reduce the number of features. However, the high dimensionality of the EEG feature vectors actually diminishes the exploration capabilities of multi-objective algorithms, impeding their real-world applicability. Hence, we propose a novel correlation-based multi-objective feature selection (COR-MFS) method, that aims to reduce dimensionality before applying the multi-objective algorithm. In the initial phase, a correlation-based dimension re-duction method is applied to filter the most relevant features with highest correlation with the class label. Subsequently, a multi-objective feature selection algorithm is applied to the shrunk search space enhancing optimization efficiency and facilitating the search process. We evaluated the proposed COR-MFS method using six large-scale EEG datasets and observed significant improvements compared to the stand-alone multi-objective feature selection. This underscores the effectiveness of our innovative framework in providing more accurate solutions with fewer number of features for extensive EEG-based classification tasks.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207