ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Modeling Subjective Affect Annotations with Multi-Task Learning.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Strength in Numbers, Power in Subjectivity: Scalable Modeling of Individual Annotators for Emotion Recognition Within and Across Corpora.IEEE transactions on affective computingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In supervised learning, the generalization capabilities of trained models are based on the available annotations. Usually, multiple annotators are asked to annotate the dataset samples and, then, the common practice is to aggregate the different annotations by computing average scores or majority voting, and train and test models on these aggregated annotations. However, this practice is not suitable for all types of problems, especially when the subjective information of each annotator matters for the task modeling. For example, emotions experienced while watching a video or evoked by other sources of content, such as news headlines, are subjective: different individuals might perceive or experience different emotions. The aggregated annotations in emotion modeling may lose the subjective information and actually represent an annotation bias. In this paper, we highlight the weaknesses of models that are trained on aggregated annotations for modeling tasks related to affect. More concretely, we compare two generic Deep Learning architectures: a Single-Task (ST) architecture and a Multi-Task (MT) architecture. While the ST architecture models single emotional perception each time, the MT architecture jointly models every single annotation and the aggregated annotations at once. Our results show that the MT approach can more accurately model every single annotation and the aggregated annotations when compared to methods that are directly trained on the aggregated annotations. Furthermore, the MT approach achieves state-of-the-art results on the COGNIMUSE, IEMOCAP, and SemEval_2007 benchmarks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.