Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fully supervised learning has recently achieved promising performance in various electroencephalography (EEG) learning tasks by training on large datasets with ground truth labels. However, labeling EEG data for affective experiments is challenging, as it can be difficult for participants to accurately distinguish between similar emotions, resulting in ambiguous labeling (reporting multiple emotions for one EEG instance). This notion could cause model performance degradation, as the ground truth is hidden within multiple candidate labels. To address this issue, Partial Label Learning (PLL) has been proposed to identify the ground truth from candidate labels during the training phase, and has shown good performance in the computer vision domain. However, PLL methods have not yet been adopted for EEG representation learning or implemented for emotion recognition tasks. In this paper, we adapt and re-implement six state-of-the-art PLL approaches for emotion recognition from EEG on two large emotion datasets (SEED-IV and SEED-V). These datasets contain four and five categories of emotions, respectively. We evaluate the performance of all methods in classical, circumplex-based and real-world experiments. The results show that PLL methods can achieve strong results in affective computing from EEG and achieve comparable performance to fully supervised learning. We also investigate the effect of label disambiguation, a key step in many PLL methods. The results show that in most cases, label disambiguation would benefit the model when the candidate labels are generated based on their similarities to the ground truth rather than obeying a uniform distribution. This finding suggests the potential of using label disambiguation-based PLL methods for circumplex-based and real-world affective 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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".